EXCHANGE 


•r/3 

AJ 


Columbia  Unibcnsitp 

STUDIES   IN   ROMANCE  PHILOLOGY  AND 
LITERATURE 


FRENCH  CRITICISM  OF  AMERICAN 
LITERATURE  BEFORE   1850 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 
SALES   AGENTS 


NEW    YORK 

LEMCKE   A    BUECHNER 
30-32  WEST  27TH  STREET 

LONDON 

HUMPHREY    MILFORD 
AMEN  CORNER,  E.G. 


FEENCH  CEITICISM  OF 

AMERICAN  LITERATURE 

BEFORE  1850 


BY 

HAROLD  ELMER  MANTZ 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  IN  THE 

FACULTY  OF  PHILOSOPHY  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


gotk 

COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1917 


Copyright,  1917 
BY  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Printed  from  type,  March,  1917 


TO 

MY  GKANDFATHEB  AND  GRANDMOTHER 

WARREN  AND  VIRGINIA  WHITE  ELMER 


359035 


NOTE 

Approved  for  publication,  on  behalf  of  the  Department 
of   Romance    Languages    and    Literatures    in    Columbia 

University. 

HENRY  ALFRED  TODD 

NEW  YORK 
Jan.  31,  1917 


FOREWORD 

IN  the  following  study  an  attempt  is  made  to 
discover  French  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
American  literature,  from  about  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  to  about  the  year 
1850.  While  it  is  thus  primarily  a  contribution 
to  the  history  of  French  criticism,  it  deals  with 
one  of  the  least  important  of  its  aspects,  both 
because  of  the  scarcity  of  American  literary 
works  of  excellence,  and  because  but  few  French 
critics  of  ability  wrote  about  those  that  did 
exist.  Thus,  in  the  first  part  of  the  investiga 
tion,  it  will  be  necessary  to  depend  in  large 
part  on  scanty  notices  of  translations,  or  of 
American  books  come  into  the  hands  of  the 
editors  of  French  periodicals.  Gradually,  more 
extended  reviews  will  be  made,  and  the  merely 
bibliographical  details  will  lose  the  importance 
they  at  first  had  as  the  only  indications  of 
the  knowledge  of  American  literature  possessed 
by  the  French.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this 
study  to  furnish  an  indication  of  all  notices 
bearing  on  books  by  American  authors;  thus 
indications  of  mere  booksellers'  announcements, 
when  no  criticism  is  offered  in  connection,  are 
generally  omitted  in  the  last  two  decades.  On 

vii 


Vlll  FOREWORD 

the  other  hand,  all  the  criticism  in  the  represen 
tative  French  periodicals  dealing  with  Ameri 
can  literature,  and  in  the  books  written  about 
the  United  States,  so  far  as  indicated  in  the 
bibliography,  has  been  presented. 

But  these  periodicals  have  been  selected 
merely  as  containing  judgments  fairly  represen 
tative  of  the  general  French  idea  of  our  litera 
ture.  Not  only  is  no  complete  bibliography 
intended  —  although  such  a  work  would  have 
been  much  appreciated  had  it  existed  —  but 
no  analysis  is  attempted  of  many  articles  or 
books  touching  the  subject.  It  is  probable  that 
no  one  will  be  tempted  to  compile  and  index 
all  that  has  been  written  in  France  on  American 
literature.  The  present  volume,  in  any  event, 
is  intended  to  supply  a  general  view  of  its 
department  of  French  criticism  until  the  bibli 
ography  shall  have  been  made,  and  then  utilized 
from  the  standpoint  from  which  this  book  has 
been  written. 

I  wish  to  thank  Professor  Adolphe  Cohn, 
Professor  John  L.  Gerig,  Dr.  Carl  Van  Doren, 
and  very  particularly  Professor  Henry  A.  Todd 
for  corrections  and  encouragement.  To  Pro 
fessor  Todd  I  am  obliged,  in  addition,  for  a 
patient  reading  of  the  proof. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FOREWORD vii 

I.  INTRODUCTORY 1 

II.  1800-1830 5 

III.  1830-1835 49 

IV.  TOCQUEVILLE 85 

V.  PHILARETE  CHASLES 118 

VI.  CONCLUSIONS 155 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 161 

INDEX  .  163 


THE  FRENCH  CRITICISM  OF 
AMERICAN  LITERATURE 


INTRODUCTORY 

FRENCH  criticism  of  American  literature  began 
approximately  with  the  year  1825.  Preceding 
years  had  indeed  seen  a  number  of  translations 
of  American  works  into  French  and  certain 
notices  upon  them  or  upon  untranslated  publi 
cations.  But  the  French  interest  in  America 
had  hitherto  been  of  a  different  nature  from 
literary;  and  very  naturally.  For  although 
national  pride  or  a  curiosity  in  the  matter  of 
bibliography  has  prompted  the  bringing  to 
gether  of  enormous  lists  of  titles  in  what  may 
be  called  American  literature  in  the  larger  sense, 
still  the  number  of  works  among  these  possess 
ing  a  degree  of  excellence  apart  from  their  his 
torical  interest  remains  small,  almost  nothing 
indeed,  relatively  to  those  of  Europe.  To-day, 
we  may  suppose,  a  colony  or  nation  correspond 
ing  in  importance  to  the  America  of  the  eigh 
teenth  century  would  receive  more  attention  for 
its  literature.  But,  aside  from  the  fact  that 
books  travelled  slowly  and  at  more  hazard  in 

i 


2      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

those  days,  there  is  the  more  important  fact 
that  France  had  almost  no  general  reviews 
other  than  learned,  before  the  end  of  the  eigh 
teenth  century.  But  France  had  not  been  look 
ing  to  America  for  literature.  Since  the  days 
when  this  hemisphere  was  'El  Dorado,'  a  land 
of  mystery  with  somewhere  in  it  the  very  foun- 
t;tin  of  youth  and  happiness,  a  land  where  all 
was  different  from  the  Europe  where  men 
suffered  want,  and  hate,  and  age;  for  France  at 
least  this  land  had  always  continued  to  be  in 
some  sort  a  Utopia,  where  the  weary  search 
for  the  philosopher's  stone  was  not  requisite 
to  set  one  above  the  misery  of  his  fellows  in 
the  Old  World,  or  where  he  should  find  brothers 
and  not  enemies  among  men.  Since  the  concep 
tion  was  an  ideal,  no  toil  and  disappointment 
were  of  sufficient  force  to  shake  it;  and  we  find 
it  growing  still  up  to  the  time  of  our  Revolu 
tion  in  the  enthusiastic  interest  in  our  cause. 
And  it  expressed  itself  even  more  sincerely  no 
doubt,  even  into  the  following  century,  in  the 
charming  conception,  the  "man  of  nature/' 
the  "good  savage." 

The  interest  in  the  American  Revolution  and 
in  the  subsequent  political  system,  is  the  turn 
ing-point,  however,  where  that  old  ideal,  being 
as  it  were  attached  to  the  American  soil,  must, 
if  it  were  not  to  be  abandoned,  find  its  way 
henceforth  among  men  and  their  works,  and 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      3 

no  longer  range  unhindered  where  nature  and 
her  unspoiled  children  were  living  out  the  Golden 
Age.  The  "good  savage "  and  the  inspiring 
world  where  he  moved  had  disappeared,  giving 
way  to  European  settlers  who  would  soon  make 
it  all  over  into  the  banal  city  and  country 
Europe  knew  too  well.  But  this  population 
had  devoted  itself  in  the  face  of  what  was  most 
powerful  in  Europe  to  an  ideal  that  bid  fair  to 
bring  another  Golden  Age,  one  of  intelligence, 
where  the  mind  as  well  as  the  heart  should  have 
a  place.  Would  not  this  new  people  embody 
the  new  ideal  in  a  comely  and  novel  and  living 
manner?  And  would  not  the  American  writers 
express  what  was  characteristic  in  the  western 
civilization  that  France  had  helped  to  preserve 
and  of  which  such  high  hopes  were  entertained? 
We  are  able  to  see  to-day,  and  indeed  there 
were  those  who  witnessed  the  French  and 
American  Revolutions  who  perceived  the  fun 
damental  difference  between  those  movements, 
the  theoretic  impulse  of  the  one,  the  practical 
character  of  the  other.  Gouverneur  Morris, 
smiling  sceptically  at  the  ardent  theorizing  in 
Parisian  salons,  according  to  which  everything 
would  soon  be  well  in  France,  and  without  any 
detail  or  contingency  being  of  possible  interest 
meanwhile  —  since  the  theory  was  good  and 
the  result  must  therefore  be  sure  —  Gouverneur 
Morris  furnishes  us  with  the  contrast  between 


4      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

the  one  change  and  the  other.  How  was  it 
possible,  then,  that  when  America  proved  in 
dustrial,  when  literature  that  should  express 
the  most  worthy,  the  most  human  side  of  this 
nation  proved  the  least  of  its  interests,  when 
what  was  produced  indeed  seemed  modelled 
closely  upon  that  of  Great  Britain  —  how  was 
it  possible  that  the  disappointment,  the  dis 
gust  of  France  should  not  be  in  proportion  to 
its  former  enthusiasm?  But  the  ideal  was  too 
deeply  rooted  to  wither;  its  manifestations  are 
often  to  be  met  with  in  the  study  of  the  French 
judgments  upon  our  literature,  if  indeed  it  does 
not  constitute  the  touchstone  for  the  right  in 
terpretation  of  those  dicta  that  would  otherwise 
seem  harsh  or  unintelligent.1 

1  Useful  lists  of  the  principal  translations  of  American  authors 
into  French,  and  of  French  works  upon  America  are  to  be  found 
in  Gustave  Lanson's  "Manuel  bibliographique  de  la  litte*rature 
frangaise  moderne." 

G.  D.  Morris,  in  "Fenimore  Cooper  et  Edgar  Poe  d'apres  la 
critique  frangaise  du  19e  siecle"  (Paris,  Larose,  1912)  has  fur 
nished  a  very  complete  treatment  of  the  French  criticism  of 
Cooper's  novels  and  of  Poe's  tales.  For  those  writers  the  work 
is  much  more  complete  than  the  present  one. 

An  interesting  resume*  of  the  part  dealing  with  Poe  was  pub 
lished  by  Dr.  Morris  in  an  article  entitled  "French  Criticism  of 
Poe"  in  the  "South  Atlantic  Quarterly"  in  1915  (vol.  XIV, 
pp.  324-329).  In  this  article  he  modifies  the  current  opinion 
that  Poe's  popularity  was  from  the  first  greater  in  France  than 
in  the  United  States,  and  that  the  French  enthusiasm  for  his 
writings  caused  a  reaction  in  his  favor  at  home. 


II 

FROM  1800  TO  1830 

HOWEVER,  the  reception  given  to  him  who 
was  probably  the  first  of  our  great  writers,  to 
Franklin,  was  openhearted  and  evidently  gen 
eral.  The  scientist  whose  researches  were  con 
sidered  of  the  first  importance,  the  patriot  and 
legislator,  the  diplomat  who  had  known  how 
to  make  himself  popular  at  Paris  as  perhaps  no 
other  had  done,  Poor  Richard,  finally,  "le  bon- 
homme  Richard " —  Franklin  had  many  titles 
to  the  esteem  of  France.  But  he  was,  of  course, 
as  a  literary  man,  the  author  of  the  "  Autobiog 
raphy,"  and  of  the  " Almanac,"  "  La  Science  du 
bonhomme  Richard."  We  may  consider  "Poor 
Richard's  Almanac"  a  work  of  literature  in  the 
stricter  sense,  or  we  may  not;  at  any  rate  we 
shall  see  later  on  how  it  was  looked  upon  as  a 
representative  American  work;  but  the  fact 
that  it  was  well  known  in  France  seems  very 
evident.  Franklin  is  constantly  referred  to  as 
Bonhomme  Richard.  The  "Magasin  encyclo- 
p6dique"  (2e  ann.,  t.  5,  p.  569)  in  1797  an 
nounces  the  "Opuscules  de  B.  Franklin,  en 
anglais  et  en  frangais  ..."  with  the  remark: 

5 


6      FRENCH    CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

Ce  volume,  tres-joliment  imprim6,  contient 
le  bon  homme  [sic]  Richard  en  anglais  et  en 
frangais.  .  .  . 

The  same  periodical  for  the  following  year  an 
nounces  a  French  translation  of  works  of  Frank 
lin,  including  the  " Autobiography.' M  In  the 
review  the  "  Almanac  "  is  particularly  spoken  of: 

Le  citoyen  Cast£ra  a  jug6  &  propos  de  traduire 
de  nouveau  et  de  terminer  ces  (Euvres  morales 
par  le  "Chemin  de  la  fortune,  ou  la  Science  du 
bonhomme  Richard. "  On  retrouve  avec  plaisir 
ce  petit  ouvrage,  qui  en  vaut  bien  de  plus  vo- 
lumineux:  c'est  Textrait  du  bon  sens  des  siecles 
et  des  nations. 

And  in  the  same  reviewer's  article  on  the 
1 1  Autobiography : ' ' 

Pendant  le  s£jour  que  Benjamin  Franklin  fit 
en  France  en  qualit£  de  ministre  p!6nipotentiare 
des  Etats-Unis,  parut  la  premiere  partie  des 
confessions  de  J.  J.  Rousseau:  cet  ouvrage  .  .  . 
donna  Pide*e  aux  personnes  qui  £taient  plus 
intimement  Ii6es  avec  Franklin,  de  Fengager 
d'6crire  aussi  les  m^moires  de  sa  vie:  il  y  con- 
sentit. 

Almost  twenty  years  later  two  French  edi 
tions  of  his  letters  occasioned  another  expression 
in  his  regard,  this  time  from  a  notable  editor, 
A.  L.  Millin,  of  the  "  Annales  encyclope*diques." 
Speaking  of  the  letters: 

1  "Magasin  encyclop£dique,"  4e  ann6e  (1798),  vol.  Ill, 
pp.  372-97. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      7 

On  reconnait  dans  les  unes  le  negotiateur 
habile  qui  a  e*minemment  contribue*  a  fonder  la 
liberte  de  son  pays;  dans  d'autres,  le  savant 
physicien  qui  a  enleve  la  f oudre  aux  dieux  comme 
il  avait  ote  le  sceptre  aux  tyrans,  et  dans  toutes 
on  retrouve  le  bon  homme  [sic]  Richard,  dont 
la  sagesse  est  toujours  indulgente,  rend  Texercice 
de  la  vertu  facile,  et  sait  joindre  a  ses  preceptes 
de  fines  et  spirituelles  plaisanteries.2 

And  again  in  1817,  the  reviewer  for  the  lately 
re-established  " Journal  des  Savants/'  Daunou, 
a  propos  of  these  same  translations  of  Frank 
lin's  correspondence,  expresses  the  wish  that 
France  might  have  a  complete  translation  of  his 
works : 

Par  son  caractere  personnel  et  par  celui  de 
ses  ouvrages,  Franklin  serait  du  petit  nombre 
des  ecrivains  qui  appartiennent  a  tout  le  globe: 
mais  il  sera,  du  moins,  reclame  tout  entier  par 
les  trois  pays  ou  il  a  fait  les  plus  longs  sejours, 
rAme"rique,  TAngleterre  et  la  France.3 

2  "Annales  ency  elope"  diques,"  1817,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  167  sqq. 
The  heading  is:    " Correspondance  choisie  de  Benjamin  Frank 
lin,  traduite  de  1'anglais;    Edition  publie"e  par  W.  T.  Franklin, 
son  petit-fils  .  .   .  chez  Treuttel    et    Wiirtz,  Paris,  Londres, 
Strasbourg." 

The  reviewer,  "A.  L.  M."  (A.  L.  Millin?),  remarks  (p.  169): 
"M.  Janet  a  public  une  autre  Edition  de  cette  correspondance, 
et  les  deux  e"diteurs  se  font,  a  ce  sujet,  une  petite  guerre  dont 
nous  ne  devons  pas  nous  meler."  The  citation  is  on  p.  167. 

3  "Journal  des  Savants,"  June,  1817,  pp.  348-56.    Citation, 
p.  356. 

For  an  appreciation  of  the  French  feeling  for  Franklin  at  the 


8      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

There  is  little  enough  in  these  notices  that  is 
to  the  purpose  in  a  purely  literary  sense,  and 
had  the  average  French  reader  of  the  period 
been  questioned  about  Franklin,  he  would 
probably  have  disposed  of  him  something  in 
this  manner:  that  he  was  pre-eminent  as  a 
scientist,  an  accomplished  and  successful  dip 
lomat,  and  with  all  this,  a  charming  personality. 
That  he  would  have  classed  him  more  naturally 
with  men  of  letters,  is  very  doubtful  indeed, 
notwithstanding  the  popularity  of  the  "  Al 
manac."  Franklin,  like  Dr.  Johnson,  and  like 
many  another  whose  works  would  justify  a  most 
particular  attention  for  their  intrinsic  worth, 
was  nevertheless  over  and  above  all  else  a 
personality.  We  are  more  familiar  with  and 
more  interested  in  Boswell's  "Life  of  Johnson" 

end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  v.  Mignet,  "Vie  de  Franklin," 
published  in  1848  as  the  seventh  of  the  "Petits  Traites  public's 
par  1' Academic  des  Sciences  morales  et  politiques"  (Paris, 
Pagnerre,  Paulin  &  Cie;  and  Firmin  Didot  Freres).  It  is  sig 
nificant  that  the  rest  of  the  title  of  Franklin's  life  is:  ".  .  .  a 
1'usage  de  tout  le  monde."  Mignet's  language  in  reporting 
Franklin's  meeting  with  Voltaire  is,  as  well,  significant  of  the 
feeling  for  Franklin  about  1850:  "C&lant  eux-me'mes  a  I'irr&sis- 
tible  Emotion  de  1'assemble'e,  ils  s'embrasscrent,  au  bruit  pro 
long^  des  applaudissements  universels.  On  dit  alors,  en  faisant 
allusion  aux  regents  travaux  le"gislatifs  de  Franklin  et  aux  derniers 
succes  dramatiques  de  Voltaire,  que  '  c'e* tait  Solon  qui  embrassait 
Sophocle';  c'e"tait  plutot  le  ge"nie  brillant  et  re*novateur  de  1'an- 
cien  monde  qui  embrassait  le  ge"nie  simple  et  entreprenant  du 
nouveau."  (p.  178) 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      9 

than  in  "Rasselas"  or  the  "  Lives  of  the  Poets/' 
because  Johnson  has  remained  what  he  was  for 
his  contemporaries,  a  personality  overshadowing 
his  production,  the  result  of  his  activity.  That 
the  works  of  such  an  author  must  inevitably 
contain  the  very  essence  of  what  constitutes  a 
literary  work,  was  less  evident  in  France  in  the 
first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  than  it 
became  later  on.  And  it  is  in  the  middle  of  the 
century  that  we  shall  have  an  opportunity  of 
learning  the  detailed  views  of  French  criticism 
on  Franklin  as  a  literary  man.  For  the  moment, 
what  has  been  noted  will  serve  as  a  fair  speci 
men  of  the  sort  of  notice  given  to  most  American 
books,  whether  in  the  way  of  belles-lettres  or 
of  works  of  a  historical  or  scientific  nature. 

In  general,  what  notices  of  our  literature 
appeared  cannot  be  called  critical;  generally 
they  occur  in  the  bibliographical  notices  of  the 
month,  and  as  it  were  incidentally.  The  French 
reviews  of  the  time  seem  for  the  most  part  to 
have  considered  it  their  special  function  to 
inform  readers  of  books  that  had  recently 
appeared,  and  to  give  accounts  of  the  principal 
matters  debated  in  the  academies.  And  their 
interests  were  not  what  might  be  called  local. 
The  "Magasin  encyclopedique,"  for  instance, 
in  the  period  from  1795  to  1800,  mentions  the 
activities  of  " literary  societies"  from  India  to 
Iceland,  the  establishment  of  a  Lappish  press  in 


10      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

Nordland,  Sweden,  and  so  on  in  great  variety, 
together  with  notes  of  whatever  publications 
may  have  come  to  hand  from  any  of  these 
localities.  In  this  particular  case,  what  is  to 
the  purpose  here  is  the  lack  of  any  mention  of 
the  kind  from  the  United  States;  that  for  a 
period  of  five  years  one  of  the  principal  reviews 
should  have  contained  no  literary  mention  of 
America,  is  certainly  a  very  noteworthy  fact  in 
this  connection.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  an 
occasional  notice  of  work  in  some  branch  of  the 
exact  sciences,  either  in  the  academies  or  pub 
lished  independently  of  them.  It  is  true  that 
under  the  caption  of  " Literary  News"  there 
was  frequently  a  section  dealing  with  the 
United  States;  but  the  term  'literary'  is  here 
used  in  the  broadest  possible  sense;  moreover, 
the  notices  occurring  there  were  more  fre 
quently  than  not  in  the  wider  field  of  science, 
as  when  in  the  "Magasin  ency elope*  dique "  in 
1803  (vol.  V,  p.  522)  an  article  bearing  jbhe 
promising  title  "Nouvelles  litte*raires  des  Etats- 
Unis  de  I'Am^rique  septentrionale,"  is  found 
upon  examination  to  treat  exclusively  of  such 
questions  as  the  theory  of  winds  and  cur 
rents,  shells,  skeletons  of  mammoths.  .  .  .  The 
"Journal  des  Savants"  for  the  year  1816, 
when  it  was  re-established  by  the  government, 
contains  no  mention,  even  bibliographical,  of 
the  United  States. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      11 

The  " Melanges  de  literature"  of  J.  B.  A. 
Suard  (Paris,  Dentu,  1803,  t.  Ill,  p.  183)  con 
tain  a  brief  paragraph  on  the  subject  of  Ameri 
can  literature  that  is  much  like  what  will  be 
found  a  quarter-century  later: 

Vous  voulez  savoir  quel  est  l'6tat  de  la  lit 
terature  et  des  sciences  dans  les  Etats-Unis? 
de  quelle  consideration  les  gens  de  lettres  et 
les  savants  y  jouissent?  La  litterature  et  les 
sciences  demandent  du  loisir,  et  personne  ici 
n'en  a  ...  En  general  on  lit  plus  qu'on  n'a 
jamais  fait;  mais  tout  concourt  a  faire  donner 
la  preference  a  la  litterature  anglaise. 

From  1819  on,  however,  the  "  Revue  encyclo- 
pedique,"  which  continued  the  "Annales  ency- 
clopediques,"  that  had  in  1817,  in  turn,  been 
the  new  title  for  the  "Magasin  encyclopedique " 
several  times  cited  —  from  1819  on  the  "Revue 
encyclopedique"  takes  regular  note  of  American 
publications  and  academy  proceedings.  The 
fact  still  remains  that  the  chief  interest  is  shown 
to  be  in  science  rather  than  in  belles-lettres. 
The  distinguished  reputation  of  Franklin  would 
seem  to  have  reflected  a  light  upon  American 
science,  and  to  have  made  it  of  perhaps  undue 
importance  to  France  —  relatively,  at  least,  to 
the  subject  of  this  research.  In  1820,  there 
is  a  note  of  the  principal  American  literary  or 
philosophic  societies,  about  ten  in  number  if 
we  include  those  "pour  Petablissement  d'une 


12      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

paix   permanente   et   universelle,"   given   as   a 
sort  of  index  to  the  progress  of  learning  here.4 

As  an  example  of  literary  criticism,  if  it  can 
be  called  such,  the  following  lines  of  a  review 
by  Depping  of  Warden's  "  Description  of  the 
United  States"  5  will  show  the  general  attitude 

4  "Revue  encyclope*dique,"  vol.  V  (1820),  p.  15.  There  are 
noted  seven  American  "Socle" t£s  scientifiques,  litte'raires,  ou 
philosophiques  Stabiles  dans  les  principales  villes  des  Stats- 
Unis."  They  are:  The  (Philadelphia)  American  Philosophical 
Society,  the  first  volume  of  whose  proceedings  was  published 
in  1771;  The  (Boston)  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences, 
founded  in  1780;  The  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences  of  the 
State  of  Connecticut,  founded  in  1799;  The  Charlestown  (S.C.) 
Literary  and  Philosophical  Society,  founded  in  1814;  The 
(New  York)  Literary  and  Philosophical  Society,  founded  in 
1815;  The  Columbian  Institute  (of  Washington);  The  (New 
Orleans)  Medical  Society. 

The  following  year  the  same  periodical  (vol.  X,  1821,  p.  436) 
contains  another  notice  of  the  same  nature:  "Etats-Unis: 
Nouvelle  socie'te'  savante  —  Institut  national  ou  Academic  des 
Belles-lettres.  ..."  On  p.  623,  an  extract  of  several  pages 
from  the  constitution  of  the  society  is  given  in  translation,  and 
the  remark  is  made  that  the  object  of  its  work  —  that  of  attempt 
ing  a  standardization  of  English  in  the  United  States  —  is  laud 
able,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  population  of  the  United 
States  is  so  scattered,  and  without  some  such  central  authority 
usage  in  language  here  would  become  too  loose.  Certain  mem 
bers'  names  are  mentioned:  J.  Q.  Adams,  Brockholst  Livingston, 
Joseph  Story,  William  Lowndes,  William  S.  Cordell,  Alexander 
M'Leod,  and  Joseph  Stearns. 

*  "Revue  encyclop&lique,"  vol.  V  (1820),  p.  501:  D.  B. 
Warden;  Description  statistique,  historique,  et  politique  des 
Etats-Unis  de  I'Ame'rique  septentrionale  .  .  .  traduite  de  1'an- 
glais.  (Paris,  1820,  Rey  &  Gravier,  prix:  40  fr.)  Warden  is 
mentioned  as  formerly  an  American  consul  in  France. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      13 

towards  the  American  ideal   as   conceived  in 
France. 

L'auteur  convient  que  la  litte"rature  et  les 
arts  ne  jettent  encore  aucun  eclat  en  Amerique. 
Faute  de  grands  ecrivains  nationaux,  on  reim- 
prime  les  meilleurs  ouvrages  anglais;  on  copie 
le  theatre  de  Londres.  Au  premier  apergu,  on 
pourrait  croire  que  1'energie  des  sentiments  de 
ce  peuple,  qu'aucune  mauvaise  institution  ne 
comprime,  devrait  developper  le  genie,  et  Ton 
pourrait  s'etonner  de  ne  trouver  chez  lui  aucun 
ouvrage  qui  en  porte  le  cachet.  Peut-etre 
aura-t-il  des  hommes  de  genie,  quand  il  sera 
dans  la  maturite  de  sa  croissance;  mais,  dut-il 
n'en  jamais  avoir,  il  s'en  consolera  aisement. 
Pour  quelques  hommes  eminents  qui  lui  man- 
quent,  il  possede  generalement,  ce  qui  est  bien 
plus  utile  a  un  peuple,  le  bon  sens,  Televation 
des  ide*es,  la  rectitude  de  Fesprit,  et  1'amour 
de  la  justice  et  de  Fegalite.  Ailleurs,  on  parle 
aux  passions,  ailleurs,  on  a  besoin  d'entrainer 
et  de  s^duire.  En  Amerique  on  parle  a  la 
raison;  et  pour  ce  langage  le  ge*nie  n'est  pas 
indispensable. 

This  is  of  course  idealization,  although  it 
seems  certain  that  at  least  by  contrast  to  the 
political  history  of  France  in  that  generation, 
there  is  a  grain  of  truth  in  the  generalization  — 
all,  no  doubt,  that  can  ever  be  expected  of  such. 
At  any  rate,  it  is  an  opinion  concurred  in  in 
France,  and  one  of  the  early  passages  illustrat 
ing  what  was  noted  a  few  pages  back  about  the 


14      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

tenacity  of  the  Utopian  conception  of  America 
hitherto  entertained  there.  The  Utopia  is  no 
longer  the  pastoral  one  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury,  where  the  ideal  of  poetry  was  all-pervad 
ing,  but  has  become  a  political  one,  a  little 
tempered  by  inevitable  reality,  but  not  un 
recognizable. 

So  much  for  those  who  would  accord  the 
United  States  a  part,  at  least,  of  the  character 
istics  requisite  for  literary  production.  Not  all 
would  grant  so  much:6 

La  literature  anglaise,  si  riche  en  chefs- 
d'oeuvre  de  tout  genre,  est  1&  toute  prete,  et  il 
semble  que  les  Am6ricains  se  croient  dispenses 
de  s'en  occuper  — [with  literary  production]  - 
II  serait  difficile  de  citer  un  seul  ouvrage,  soit 
en  prose,  soit  en  vers,  produit  du  g6nie  ame*ricain, 
qu'on  puisse  placer  parmi  ceux  du  second  order 
en  Europe. 

The  "  Revue  ency elope*  dique  "  was  one  of  the 
most  serviceable  channels  for  the  communica 
tion  of  this  reality.  That  a  very  incomplete 
idea  of  the  United  States  was  entertained  in 
France  at  this  time,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to 
say,  but  that  a  conscientious  effort  began  to  be 
made  is  at  any  rate  the  evidence  of  a  conviction 
that  a  better  acquaintance  would  prove  of 

•  "Mercure  Stranger,"  1813,  vol.  I,  pp.  65-6.  An  extract 
from  letters  from  America,  signed  "R  *  *  *." 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      15 

worth.     In  1821   the   above-mentioned  period 
ical  has  the  following:7 

N.  B.  Comme  nos  relations  avec  les  Etats- 
Unis  de  TAmerique  sont  encore  tres-irregulieres 
et  mal  etablies,  nous  ne  pouvons  donner  que  de 
loin  en  loin  ceux  des  ouvrages  periodiques  ou 
autres  qui  viennent  a  notre  connaissance.  Nous 
invitons  ...  a  ...  nous  transmettre,  soit  les 
annonces  des  meilleurs  ouvrages,  publics  recem- 
ment  dans  leur  pays,  soit  les  nouvelles  qui 
peuvent  interesser  les  sciences,  les  arts,  et  la 
litterature. 

Such  is  the  following : 8 

Boston.  —  Manuscrits  grecs.  —  Des  manu- 
scrits  grecs  que  le  professeur  Everett  a  achete*s, 
dans  le  mois  de  juin  dernier,  d'un  prince  grec 
etabli  a  Constantinople,  viennent  d'arriver  a 
Boston.  En  voici  la  note.  .  .  .  [They  are 
manuscripts  of  the  Fathers,  and  of  other  ecclesi 
astical  literature,  among  others,  of  Saint  Greg 
ory  of  Nazianzus,  etc.] 

.  .  .  ce  sont  les  seuls  manuscrits  grecs  de 
Tantiquite  que  possedent  les  Etats-Unis. 

Such  periodicals  as  reached  France  were 
generally  reviewed,  or  at  least  announced.  Of 
especial  interest  among  these  was  the  "  North 

7  "  Revue  encyclope'dique,"  vol.  X,  (1821),  p.  144,  in  the  sec 
tion  "Bulletin  bibliographique  des  livres  Strangers,"  where,  it 
should  be  mentioned,  American  books  were  likely  to  be  noted. 
They  were  not  likely  to  be  otherwise  dealt  with. 

s  "Revue  encyclope'dique,"  vol.  VII  (1820),  pp.  367-8.  In 
the  section  "Nouvelles  litte>aires." 


16      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

American  Review,"  upon  which  there  is  the 
following  remark,  suggested  by  the  January 
number  of  1820:9 

Get  ouvrage  periodique,  Tun  des  premiers  de 
ce  genre  qui  ait  6t6  public*  dans  les  fitats-Unis 
d'Am6rique,  justifie  les  esp6rances  qu'en  avaient 
congues  les  amis  de  la  saine  literature  et  de 
la  vraie  philosophic. 

An  article  in  it  upon  the  program  of  literary 
and  scientific  courses  at  the  University  of  Vir 
ginia  is  briefly  summarized  as  being  of  particu 
lar  interest,  and  the  table  of  contents  given  in 
part. 

.  .  .  nous  esp6rons  pouvoir,  dans  le  cours  de 
Tanne*e  prochaine,  £tablir  des  relations  plus 
suivies  avec  TAm^rique  du  Nord,  et  rendre 
compte  du  contenu  des  principaux  recueils  de 
literature  et  de  sciences  publics  dans  ces 
contr6es. 

But  for  a  few  years  more  their  efforts  in  this 
way  seem  not  to  have  been  very  fruitful,  as 
there  appears  only  one  notice  besides  those  for 
the  " North  American  Review"  in  the  following 
year  of  1821;  it  is  upon  a  couple  of  numbers  of 
"The  Western  Review  and  Miscellaneous  Maga 
zine"  for  the  year  1820,  published  at  Lexington, 

•  "Revue  encyclop&iique,"  vol.  VIII  (1820),  pp.  108-9. 
Review  of  the  "North  American  Review  and  Miscellaneous 
Journal,"  No.  XXVI,  January,  1820. 


FRENCH    CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      17 

Kentucky.10  The  contents  of  these  numbers  as 
reported  in  the  "  Revue  encyclopedique "  are 
interesting;  they  include:  "An  Essay  on  Ambi 
tion  and  Happiness/7  an  article  on  Scott's 
"Ivanhoe,"  a  "dissertation"  on  "esprit,"  one 
upon  Oriental  idylls,  another  on  "Ohio  River 
Fishes,"  and  finally,  extracts  from  "un  ouvrage 
intitule  'Le  Livre  d'esquisses  de  Geoffrey 
Crayon7  par  M.  Irvine  [sic]."  In  literary  mat 
ters,  it  is  often  evident  that  the  French  awaited 
British  judgments  upon  American  works  before 
pronouncing,  and  not  only  in  the  period  under 
consideration.  The  natural  inference  is,  either 
that  French  critics  were  not  sufficiently  ac 
quainted  with  the  field,  or  that  they  were  timid 
in  expressing  opinions  that  might  later  be 
questioned  in  a  country  more  able  to  furnish 
valuable  judgment  in  those  subtle  matters  of 
language  and  style  that  are  determining  in  lit 
erary  criticism.  Granted  that  there  is  reason  to 
suppose  so  much,  still  it  would  not  do  to  stop 
at  that  as  sufficient  explanation.  Certainly  an 
effort  was  being  made  to  appreciate  the  literary 
America;  but  America,  for  France,  was  not 
literary,  it  was  political,  just  as  it  had  been 
the  type  of  the  revolutionary  ideal.  A  notice 
of  half  a  dozen  numbers  of  the  "North  American 

10  "  Revue  ency elope" dique,"  vol.  X  (1821),  p.  145.  The  copy 
of  the  "Western  Review"  was,  vol.  II,  No.  4,  May,  1820;  they 
had  also  the  number  for  August  of  that  year. 


18      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

Review"  of  1821,  certain  allowance  being  made 
for  pique,  still  represents  very  well  that  tone  of 
feeling  in  regard  to  the  American  literary  sense.11 

Ce  journal  Iitt6raire,  r£dig6  sur  le  plan  des 
"  Revues "  anglaises  .  .  .  offre  des  especes  d'es- 
sais,  Merits  la  plupart  avec  beaucoup  de  talent, 
sur  les  livres  indiqu^s  en  tete  de  chaque 
article.  .  .  . 

Si  les  vues  des  re*dacteurs  de  ce  recueil  sur 
les  affaires  politiques  sont  presque  tou jours 
parfaitement  justes,  il  n'en  est  peut-etre  pas  de 
meme  de  leurs  jugements  litteraires.  Us  nous 
paraissent  partager  un  peu  les  pre*juge*s  des 
Anglais  contre  la  litte>ature  des  autres  pays,  et 
surtout  contre  la  literature  frangaise.  On  lira 
toutefois  avec  interet  Panalyse  de  Touvrage  de 
madame  Necker  de  Saussure  sur  la  vie  et  les 
Merits  de  madame  de  Stael;  Particle  sur  les 
observations  historiques  relatives  a  la  Hollande, 
par  Louis  Buonaparte;  Fextrait  de  la  vie  prive*e 
de  Voltaire,  par  madame  de  Graffigny;  ceux 
de  Thistoire  de  Tastronomie,  par  Bailly;  et  des 
me*moires  de  Suard,  par  Garat;  et  enfin,  Tarticle 
sur  rindiffe>ence  en  mature  de  religion,  par 
1'abbS  de  la  Mennais.  (Signed:  "B— n.") 

One  is  somewhat  at  a  loss  to  understand  the 
reproach  that  Americans  made  unfair  distinc 
tions  to  the  prejudice  of  French  literature. 

A  copy  of  the  " American  Annual  Register" 
for  1827  reaching  the  editors  of  the  "Revue 

11  "  Revue  encyclop&iique,"  vol.  XII  (1821),  pp.  573-4.  The 
numbers  of  the  "North  American  Review"  mentioned  are: 
Nos.  1  to  6,  of  the  New  Series,  1821 . 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE       19 

encyclopedique  "  in  that  year  suggests  a  note 
calling  attention  to  the  rapid  progress  of  peri 
odical  publication  in  the  United  States.12 

A  number  of  the  "  Philadelphia  Monthly 
Magazine"  for  1829  contains  an  article  describ 
ing  the  French  criticism  of  American  literature 
as  better  than  the  dicta  of  the  English;  the 
"  Revue  encyclopedique " 13  takes  occasion  to 
thank  the  "  Philadelphia  Magazine "  for  help 
ing  them  know  in  more  detail  a  land  as  worthy 
of  attention  as  "la  noble  patrie  de  Franklin  et 
de  Cooper.'7 

Perhaps  these  notices  of  American  periodicals 
constitute  after  all  the  most  valuable  informa 
tion  that  the  general  reading  public  in  France 
obtained  of  activity  in  letters  in  the  United 
States  of  that  period.  For  the  reviews  of  books 
for  the  most  part  were  so  very  inadequate 
as  to  give  a  vague,  but  probably  also  a  dis 
torted,  image  of  the  status  of  American  litera 
ture.  We  find  the  preconceived  idea  constantly 
intruding  itself  into  those  judgments  which,  to 

12  Vol.  XXXIV,  p.  405.    Other  notices  of  American  periodi 
cals  are  to  be  found  in  the  "Revue  encyclopedique"  as  follows: 
1826,  v.  XXIX,  p.  132,  on  the  "Atlantic  Magazine";   1825,  v. 
XXVII,  pp.  755-6,  on  the  "New  York  Review  and  Athenaeum 
Magazine";    1826,  v.  XXIX,  pp.  133-4,  on  Louvet's  "R6veil" 
of  New  York.    And  in  the  same  for  1827,  v.  XXXV,  pp.  119-22, 
there  is  an  article  by  Isidore  Lebrun  on  American  "Ouvrages 
pe*riodiques,"  where  he  says:  "On  porte  a  pres  de  600  le  nombre 
des  ouvrages  pe"riodiques  de  FAme'rique  du  nord." 

13  1829,  vol.  XLIV,  pp.  695-8. 


20      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

be  valuable,  should  be  unprejudiced,  very  much 
as  in  the  case  of  the  opinion  as  to  the  literary 
judgment  of  the  editors  of  the  "  North  American 
Review/'  cited  above.  ,And  this  is  particularly 
so  of  the  poems  that  are  criticised.  There  are 
two  mentions  of  that  forgotten  poem  "Missis- 
sippian  Scenery,"  by  Charles  Mead,  published 
in  1819.14  It  suggested  the  following  reflections 
in  the  mind  of  the  reviewer: 

Nourris  des  chefs-d'oeuvre  de  la  literature 
anglaise,  pouvant  puiser  a  la  meme  source 
d'heureuses  inspirations,  d'oti  vient  que  les 
Am£ricains  n'ont  encore  rien  produit  de  re- 
marquable  dans  les  lettres?  Le  g6nie  du  com 
merce  £toufferait-il  chez  ce  peuple  le  gotit  des 
beaux-arts  et  de  la  po£sie?  On  serait  tent6  de 
le  croire,  en  voyant  la  m6diocrit6  de  ses  produc 
tions  po6tiques.  Ce  sont  de  pales  et  faibles 
imitations  des  £crivains  anglais,  tout  y  manque 
de  chaleur  et  de  vie.  Point  de  descriptions 
anim6es;  point  d'accents  males  et  g6n6reux,  tels 
qu'on  doit  en  attendre  d'un  peuple  libre,  cr^ateur 
de  son  ind^pendance  et  n'ob&ssant  qu'aux  lois 
qu'il  s'est  lui-meme  imposes.  Ces  observations 
se  pr^sentent  en  foule  a  la  lecture  de  1'ouvrage 
que  nous  annongons. 

At  this  date  it  is  not  remarkable  that  no 
mention  of  Irving  should  have  been  made  to 
temper  the  severity  of  the  phrase  "the  Ameri- 

14  "Revue  encyclop&lique"  for  1820,  vol.  VIII,  p.  343,  and 
id.,  1822,  vol.  XIII,  p.  129. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      21 

cans  have  not  yet  produced  anything  of  note 
in  letters";  as  living's  " Sketch-Book "  could 
not  be  expected  to  have  a  wide  circulation  in 
France  upon  its  publication.  But  the  wide 
generalization,  as  contrasted  with  the  universal 
enthusiasm  for  the  personality  and  works  of 
Franklin,  will  show  how  little  he  was  consid 
ered  as  distinctively  a  man  of  letters.  But  from 
another  point  of  view  there  is  a  special  interest 
attaching  to  the  lines  quoted,  since  one  so  sel 
dom  meets,  in  this  period  of  French  criticism, 
with  an  admission  of  the  fact  that  American 
literature  must  naturally  begin  with  the  imita 
tion  or  adaptation  of  English  models.  Generally, 
the  tone  is  almost  querulous  when  this  fact  of 
limitation  is  in  question.15  It  would  be  diffi- 

15  The  following,  both  signed  (Mme)  L.  Sw.  B(elloc),  although 
somewhat  later  than  the  criticism  last  cited,  are  still  sufficiently 
similar  in  tone  to  the  notices  already  cited  to  be  considered 
typical  (comp.  note  9): 

"Revue  encyclope"dique,"  vol.  XLII  (1829),  pages  146-7: 
Willis'  "Token"  (Bost.,  Goodrich,  &  Lon.,  Kurnett,  1829)  is 
discussed  as  follows:  " Voil£t  quatre  ou  cinq  ans  qu'on  public 
re*gulierement  en  Angleterre  des  recueils  de  prose  et  de  vers 
e"le"gamment  imprimis,  et  erne's  de  vignettes  des  meilleurs 
artistes.  Ces  livres,  faits  &  Finstar  de  nos  'Tablettes  roman- 
tiques',  de  nos  'Almanach  des  Muses',  etc.,  se  composent  de 
morceaux  de"tache"s,  de  fragments,  de  contes,  de  poesies;  les 
noms  des  auteurs,  et  surtout  des  peintres  et  des  graveurs  qui  y 
ont  contribue*  en  assurent  la  vogue.  Cette  mode  a  passe*  en 
Ame"rique  .  .  .  On  y  de"sirerait  plus  d'originalite* :  une  empreinte 
plus  marquee  du  pays  et  des  mceurs  nationales.  Partout  se 
fait  sentir  une  imitation  servile  de  la  litte>ature  anglaise.  On 


22      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

cult,  and  no  doubt  in  this  place  fruitless,  to 
attempt  a  proof  that  American  literature  was 
in  no  way  like  the  characterization  of  the 
French  reviewers.  Certainly  it  was  better,  in 
every  respect  more  worthy  than  they  conceived 
it;  but  whatever  is  unreservedly  condemned  is 
likely  to  be  better  than  its  reputation. 

It  was  noted  above  that  France  appears  to 
have  suffered  a  disillusion  in  regard  to  the 
United  States:  in  proportion  as  the  principles 
of  the  American  Revolution  had  seemed  noble, 
the  results  of  that  effort  had  been  awaited  with 

ne  comprend  pas  que  des  esprits  divers  semblent  jete*s  dans  le 
meme  moule.  Parmi  les  contes  les  plus  remarquables  nous 
citerons,  'Le  Fils  d'un  Gentilhomme ',  'La  Ruse',  'les  Emi 
grants'.  La,  du  moins,  on  n'est  plus  en  Europe  .  .  ." 

(Id.,  vol.  XLIII,  pp.  393-4):  Samuel  KettelPs  collection 
"Specimens  of  American  Poetry"  is  thus  dealt  with:  "Toujours 
me" me  de*faut  dans  ces  sortes  de  recueils,  et  toujours  m6me 
plainte  de  notre  part  .  .  .  une  de"sespe*rante  monotonie  dans  la 
pense"e  et  dans  1'expression  trahit  une  imitation  perse"ve*rante 
des  Anglais.  II  y  a  dix  ans,  c'e"tait  Pope  et  son  e*cole;  aujour- 
d'hui  c'est  Byron  et  Moore.  Comment  expliquer  cette 
aridite*  .  .  .  ?  II  y  a  ...  une  grande  somme  de  talent,  mais 
nous  parlions  du  ge*nie,  qui  est  rare  partout,  et  qui,  en  Ame*rique, 
ne  s'est  encore  montre"  que  dans  les  vives  et  poe*tiques  inspira 
tions  de  1'auteur  du  'Dernier  des  Mohicans',  du  'Corsaire 
rouge',  etc.  Ici,  il  y  a  de  la  grace,  des  vers  habilement  faits, 
d'assez  jolies  images,  mais  qu'on  a  vues  partout.  Peut-e"tre  y 
aurait-il  de  1'injustice  a  ne  pas  excepter  les  compositions  de 
Halleck,  od  I'originalit^  se  montre  de  loin  en  loin.  Dans  son 
'Chdteau  d'Alnwick'  il  y  a  de  la  verve  et  de  1'avenir.  II  est 
jeune,  qu'il  s'affranchisse  des  traditions  litte>aires,  qu'il  se  confie 
a  ses  propres  forces,  et  il  aura  donne*  a  son  pays  un  poete  de  plus." 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      23 

anxiety  —  and  the  results,  so  far  as  literature 
was  concerned  —  seemed  lacking.  But  may  we 
not  suppose  that  the  feelings  of  Frenchmen 
were  rather  more  complicated  in  this  regard 
than  they  would  have  had  us  realize?  They 
felt,  and  rightly,  that,  with  whatever  differences 
in  the  mode  of  dealing  with  the  political 
questions  confronting  the  two  countries,  the 
general  principles  contended  for  in  both  were 
identical.  And  the  enemy  of  both  was  England. 
Jefferson  is  somewhere  reported  to  have  said 
that  if  he  could  not  live  in  America,  he  should 
find  France  the  most  congenial  to  his  mode  of 
thought  of  all  nations;  Franklin  certainly  gave 
no  different  impresson  to  the  land  that  so 
highly  honored  him.  The  Englishman  Thomas 
Paine,  rejected  by  his  country  and  adopted  by 
America  and  by  France,  as  it  were  in  concerted 
protest  against  the  ideas  of  the  common  enemy, 
is  only  a  striking  example  of  the  trend  of  inter 
national  opinion.  Is  it  not  easily  comprehen 
sible  that  the  ordinary  French  reader  of  the 
'20's  should  have  been  a  little  disconcerted  and 
a  little  piqued  at  the  anglophile  tendency  of 
the  American  literature  of  that  day?  It  is  a 
noteworthy  fact  that  the  critics  of  this  litera 
ture  were  as  yet  to  come  in  France;  the  strag 
gling  notes  so  far  encountered  were  for  the  most 
part  written,  excepting  Daunou's,  by  hands  that 
have  left  no  work  by  which  they  may  be  judged 


24      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

more  trustworthy  than  the  most  casual  reviewer 
for  periodicals;  and  such  indeed  they  seem  to 
have  been.  But  as  such,  incidentally,  they 
doubtless  represent  with  considerable  exacti 
tude  the  prevalent  opinions. 

One  misapprehension  in  criticism  appears, 
however,  in  all  this:  that  the  political  affiliations 
of  a  nation,  even  its  political  theories  and  ideals, 
may  be  expected  to  react  upon  and  direct  the 
form  of  its  literature.  In  their  criticism  of 
American  literature  the  French  reviewers  tacitly 
disavowed  what  they  would  fervently  have 
maintained  had  they  been  discussing  the  out 
put  of  French  Switzerland  or  of  French  Belgium : 
that  the  great  determining  factor  in  literature 
is  language.  Nor  were  they  consistent  in  those 
special  criteria  applied  to  American  literature: 
it  is  only  at  a  later  period  that  the  name  of 
Jefferson  became  significant  in  a  literary  sense, 
and  we  have  seen  how  little  "Poor  Richard's 
Almanac  "  and  the  "  Autobiography  "  of  Frank 
lin  were  considered  in  that  light.  All  this  was 
extra-literary,  and  yet,  all  that  is  to  be  produced 
in  America  smacking  of  the  old  traditions,  the 
"goftt  de  terroir"  of  that  legitimate  and  genu 
ine  source  of  cultivated  literary  expression, 
English  literature,  will  be  decried,  as  were 
Irving's  books,  because  they  bear  the  "  cachet " 
of  that  land  that  was,  after  all,  America's  past. 
It  was  felt,  and  expressed,  that  because  the 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      25 

United  States  were  separated  from  "  old  Europe  " 
by  an  ocean,  because  they  had  disengaged  their 
destinies  from  the  intricacies  of  European  poli 
tics,  that  their  spiritual  and  intellectual  tradi 
tion  must  lie  with  a  perpetually  resounding 
Declaration  of  Independence,  or  else  —  all  this 
was  not  the  clearer  for  being  maintained  as 
self-evident  in  France  —  or  else  with  those  true 
children  of  the  American  soil, — Hurons,  Algon- 
quins,  Mohicans.  .  .  .  America  was  a  new,  free 
land:  it  must  express  its  newness,  its  freedom, 
in  letters  that  should  be  the  very  opposite  of 
that  which  in  fact  was  the  trunk  of  which  they 
could  only  be  the  branch  —  English  literature. 
No  allowance  was  made  for  the  immense  process 
of  assimilation  that  must  be  gone  through  with 
in  the  United  States  before  any  work  at  once 
finished  and  national  could  appear. 

There  are  two  modern  literatures  that  began 
to  receive  attention  in  France  at  almost  the 
same  time,  and  the  destinies  of  which  seem  to 
have  been,  from  similar  beginnings,  as  different 
as  possible.  From  the  tenth  century  to  the 
eighteenth,  Russian  literature  got  almost  never 
outside  the  bounds  of  that  substratum  of  lit 
erature  that  we  call  folk-song  and  proverb, 
and  then,  at  the  end  of  the  period,  only  to  fall 
into  an  excess  of  imitation  of  Western  European 
letters  that  finds  no  parallel  even  in  America. 
Yet  nineteenth-century  criticism  is  at  one  in 


26      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

finding  the  modern  output  of  Russia  the  very 
type  of  national  expression.  The  reason  is,  of 
course,  that  Russia  was  able  to  build  out  of  the 
traditions  of  a  race,  without  being  taxed  with 
treason  to  the  spirit  of  nationality:  Saltykoff 
(Shtchedrin),  Ostrovsky,  and  even  Turgenief, 
were  able  to  be  modern,  and  national,  and  yet 
throw  into  their  works  that  ancient  color  of 
phrase  and  reference  that  is  the  soul  of  a  litera 
ture.  Images  hallowed  by  generations  of  use 
until  they  had  become  the  type  of  moods  and 
ideas  for  the  readers  who  in  this  modern  age 
are  frequently  the  writers,  became  for  Ameri 
cans  almost  a  sort  of  taboo:  Irving's  affection 
ate  reinvocation  of  a  breath  of  eighteenth- 
century  English  atmosphere,  Longfellow's 
middle  ages,  were  indiscriminately  condemned 
in  their  time,  as  will  be  seen.  The  nightingale 
must  not  sing  across  the  verse  of  any  poet  who 
happens  to  be  American  —  for  the  nightingale 
does  not  sing  in  America,  although  it  had  always 
sung  for  him  from  the  pages  of  the  poets  who 
had  formed  him. 

It  is  not,  as  was  said,  possible  to  deny  that 
there  was  a  misuse  of  these  forms  and  images 
in  our  literature;  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  for 
the  most  part,  so  far  as  verse  was  concerned, 
there  was  the  coin-mark  of  convention  over  all. 
That  American  poetry  was  too  often  cold,  is 
true.  But  it  is  the  purpose  to  comment  here 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      27 

rather  upon  the  state  of  French  criticism  in 
respect  to  it.  And  it  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  merely  the  overuse  of  means  and  modes  of 
expression;  it  is  rather  and  above  all  the  legiti 
macy  of  such  at  all  in  American  literature  that 
is  brought  in  question. 

Such  was  the  general  tendency  as  to  the  point 
of  view  regarding  the  United  States.  Yet  a  part 
of  the  facts  as  we  now  understand  them  may  be 
found  scattered  here  and  there  in  the  judgments 
of  the  reviewers.  Noting  the ' '  Southern  Review ' ' 
and  the  "  American  Quarterly  Review "  in  1829, 
this  judgment  was  offered  in  an  unsigned  article 
in  the  "  Revue  encyclopedique : " 16 

Ces  Revues  traitent  de  tout,  hors  de  TAme- 
rique  et  des  ouvrages  americains  .  .  .  d'ou  vient 
ce  dedain?  Serait-ce  que  les  hommes,  plus 
vieux  que  le  sol  fecond  sur  lequel  le  hasard  les  a 
fait  naitre,  ne  sont  pas  en  harmonie  avec  cette 
nature  riche  et  grandiose  ou  nous  autres  Euro- 
peens  nous  allons  retremper  nos  ames  amollies? 
Serait-ce  qu'en  depit  le  leurs  meilleurs  institu 
tions,  les  Americains  tournent  parfois  un  ceil 
d'envie  et  d' amour,  vers  ce  vieux  r  continent 
d'ou  leurs  peres  s'exilerent?  .  .  .  Les  Etats-Unis 
n'ont  point  de  passe,  et  contents  du  present,  a 
peine  se  permettent-ils  des  reves  d'avenir.  .  .  . 
La  critique  n'y  est  pas  non  plus  a  la  hauteur  de 
celle  d'Angleterre,  ni  progressive  et  en  marche 
comme  parmi  nous:  savante  et  consciencieuse, 
elle  s'appesantit  trop  sur  les  details,  et  manque 

16  Vol.  XLII,  pp.  408-9. 


28      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

de  cet  attrait  qui  fait  lire  un  livre  ou  un  article 
jusqu'au  bout. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  such  opinions  regarding 
American  criticism  are  not  documented,  at 
least  by  reference  to  those  works  from  which 
the  reviewer  drew  his  conclusions.  But  in  the 
case  of  American  historical  and  critical  writing, 
there  will  be  ample  attention  given  to  it  in 
France  in  later  years.  We  can,  however,  sup 
pose  that  copies  of  the  "New  York  Evening 
Post"  (est.  1801),  of  Benjamin  Silliman's  "Amer 
ican  Journal  of  Science"  (est.  1818),  as  well 
as  the  reviews  mentioned,  may  have  been  among 
the  materials  easily  accessible  in  France.  And 
in  the  way  of  books,  in  1802  appeared  Noah 
Webster's  "Rights  of  Neutral  Nations  in  Time 
of  War"  and  Count  Rumford's  fourth  volume 
of  "Philosophical  Papers,"  and  must  have 
been  known  in  France;  later,  probably,  Tick- 
nor's  "Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Lafayette" 
(1825),  and  possibly  also  Edward  Everett's 
"Progress  of  Literature  in  America"  (1824). 
But  of  this  last  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  there 
is  no  mention,  not  to  say  analysis  and  discussion; 
it  would  have  furnished  an  excuse  to  a  critic 
to  formulate  those  ideas  in  regard  to  a  new  lit 
erature  which  we  can  now  only  attempt  to 
reconstitute  from  these  scattered  notes.  How 
ever,  we  may  conclude  that  at  this  time  a 
thorough  discussion  of  the  subject  was  not 


FRENCH    CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      29 

considered  worth  the  making:    here  at  least  is 
an  illuminating  fact. 

However,  there  is  a  very  desultory  but  still 
approximately  complete  notice  of  the  poetical 
production  of  the  United  States  from  1824  to 
1830,  especially  when  we  consider  the  light  in 
which  this  production  was  regarded  in  France. 
It  was  customary  to  say  that  poetry  was  here 
only  the  diversion  of  dilettanti  and  frequently 
of  very  youthful  ones.17  Nevertheless,  it  seems 
to  have  been  thought  a  duty  to  mention  as 
many  of  these  efforts  as  came  to  hand,  and 
if  the  poetic  merits  could  not  be  discussed, 
to  make  some  criticism  at  least  of  the  merits 
of  the  argument  or  of  the  poet  in  other  respects 
than  as  to  his  verse.18 

17  Summer-Lincoln  Fairfield's  "Poems"  are  thus  reviewed 
by  Louise  Belloc  in  the  "Revue  encyclope'dique "  in  1824,  vol. 
XXI,  p.  355:  ".  .  .  Tous  leurs  poetes  sont  jeunes,  et  leurs 
oeuvres  tellement  imparfaites  que  ce  ne  sont  guere  que  des 
promesses  pour  Favenir  qui  se  re"alisent  rarement  .  .  .  En  ne 
conside"rant  le  volume  que  nous  annongons  que  comme  le  de"but 
d'un  auteur  de  dix-neuf  ans,  on  peut  a  peine  encore  y  trouver 
quelque  me*rite.    II  renferme  des  vers  heureux  mais  il  y  en  a 
beaucoup  qui  sont  fort  mauvais,  et  partout  1'emphase  y  occupe 
la  place  de  la  raison  et  de  la  veritable  poe"sie." 

18  For  instance,  Solomon  South  wick's  "Pleasures  of  Poverty" 
(reviewed  in  the  "Revue  encyclope'dique,"   1824,  vol.  XXII, 
p.  375)  could  evoke  only  a  rather  spirited  denial  of  the  poet's 
thesis,  that  poverty  is  an  unmixed  blessing. 

Daniel  Bryan's  "Lay  of  Gratitude"  —  "recueil  de  poemes 
Merits  a  1'occasion  de  la  visite  du  ge"ne"ral  Lafayette  aux  fitatft- 
Unis"  —  (reviewed  in  the  "Revue  encyclope'dique,"  1826,  vol. 


30      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

Solomon  Southwick  and  Daniel  Bryan  and 
"  Monsieur  Coffin  "  are  forgotten,  perhaps  un 
justly.  Who,  excepting  Franklin,  and  Cooper, 
and  Irving,  remains  to-day  much  more  than  a 
name,  even  in  America?  Yet  certain  poets  of 
the  period  are  still  mentioned,  if  not  much 
read,  among  us,  and  in  a  general  way  it  may  be 
said  that  they  did  not  pass  unnoticed  in  their 
day  in  France.  The  praise  of  them  was  rarely 

XXXII,  pp.  389-90)  could  hardly,  by  its  very  nature,  be  passed 
over:  "Tout  n'est  point  e"galement  bon  dans  le  recueil  du  poete 
ame>icain;  mais  les  amis  des  vers  y  distingueront  plusieurs 
morceaux  pleins  de  verve  et  d'imagination,  tels  que  le  'Salut' 
('The  Greeting')  .  .  .  et  le  'Conge*'  ('The  Valedictory').  .  ." 

Bryan  had,  however,  attracted  sufficient  notice  by  this  tribute 
to  France  in  the  person  of  Lafayette,  to  make  himself  heard 
upon  a  later  occasion  and  a  very  different  one.  In  1826  appeared 
in  Washington  his  "Appeal  for  Suffering  Genius;  a  Poetical 
Address  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Boston  Bard."  The  following 
year,  evidently  at  the  earliest  possible  opportunity,  the  "Revue 
encyclope"dique"  (1827,  vol.  XXXIV,  pp.  666-8)  has  this: 
'Ce  petit  poeme  est  un  appel  plein  de  chaleur  a  la  pitie*  et  a  la 
charite"  publiques:  un  poete  demande  pour  un  autre  poete  un 
lit  et  du  pain.  Ce  n'est  pas  avec  la  froide  indifference  d'un 
critique  qu'on  peut  lire  ce  cri  de  de"tresse.  M.  Bryan,  dans  des 
vers  empreints  d'une  tremblante  anxi^te",  met  a  nu  la  misere 
de  1'homme  qui  a  ce'le'bre'  les  gloires  de  l'Ame"rique  ..."  (and 
in  a  footnote  to  page  667)  "La  Direction  de  la  Revue  encyclo- 
pe"dique  aime  a  payer  un  tribut  a  l'homme  de  ge"nie  malheureux, 
en  ouvrant  une  souscription  au  profit  de  M.  Coffin,  et  en  sou- 
scrivant  elle-m6me  pour  une  somme  de  20  fr.  Les  personnes 
qui  voudraient  prendre  part  a  cette  souscription,  pourront  de"- 
poser  leurs  offrandes  a  notre  bureau,  rue  d'Enfer  Saint-Michel, 
No.  18."  There  is  no  other  criticism  of  a  literary  nature  in  this 
notice,  which  is  signed  by  Mme  Belloc. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      31 

unqualified;  generally,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
sum  total  of  the  praise  seems  hardly  to  balance 
the  strictures,  more  or  less  justified,  that  were 
passed  upon  them.  And  so  far  as  that  is  con 
cerned,  can  we  wonder,  or  can  we  complain, 
that  this  was  so?  It  was  not  in  the  day  of 
Lamartine,  of  Vigny,  of  Hugo,  of  Musset,  that 
France  needed  to  search  for  poetry  abroad.  We 
should  be  wrong,  no  doubt,  even  in  the  case  of 
a  lingering  preference  for  one  or  other  of  these 
American  poets,  to  criticise  with  harshness  or 
resentment  the  somewhat  condescending  or  dis 
paraging  attitude  toward  us.  Rather,  the 
profit  of  such  a  study  must  come  out  of  a  scrupu 
lously  impersonal  unravelling  of  the  real  thread 
of  literary  theory  from  all  the  waste  of  snobbism 
and  of  prejudice. 

So  far  as  poetry  is  concerned,  the  standard 
set  in  France  was  a  very  high  one,  or  perhaps 
rather  a  very  severe  one,  not  only  as  regards 
verse-structure,  but  also  the  very  materials  and 
mood  of  poetry.  Whether  the  English  tradition 
permits  a  wider  range  in  this  latter  element, 
would  be  a  question  perhaps  worth  study;  at 
any  rate  it  constantly  presents  itself  in  the 
reading  of  French  opinions  of  English  poetry  — 
and  particularly  of  American  poetry,  about 
which  it  is  not  unfair  to  suppose  that  the 
French  allowed  themselves  a  somewhat  fuller 
liberty  of  censure  than  might  be  ventured  upon 


32      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

by  them  in  the  case  of  England,  where  poet  or 
critic  found  a  solid  breastwork  in  unquestioned 
literary  tradition: 

La  "Clio,"  melanges  de  poesies,  par  M. 
James  Percival,  annonce  du  talent;  mais  on 
y  trouve  toujours  cette  teinte  philosophique 
qui  s'accorde  rarement  avec  Pinspiration.19 

The  premise  might  be  questioned,  or  a  defini 
tion  required,  before  such  a  dictum  need  be 
accepted;  it  must  have  been  supposed,  however, 
that  no  defender  of  the  opposite  side  would  pre 
sent  himself. 

L'analyse  M  d'une  nouvelle  production  que  les 
muses  ame*ricaines  ont  inspire  &  M.  Hillhouse 
parait  fort  indulgente:  la  structure  Strange  de 
"Hadad,"  poeme  dramatique,  sera  juge*e  en 
Europe  avec  plus  de  seVerite*. 

And  this  notwithstanding  a  more  favorable  re 
view  that  had  appeared  the  year  before  in  the 
same  periodical:21 

19  "Revue  encyclop&iique,"   1823,  vol.  XVIII,  pp.  541-2, 
upon  poems  of  Percival  appearing  in  "The  North  American 
Review"  for  January,  1823. 

20  In  the  "North  American  Review"  for  January,  1826,  new 
Mriflf,  No.  25.    The  passage  is  from  the  "Revue  encyclop&lique  " 
of  1826,  vol.  XXIX,  p.  740. 

21  "Hadad,  a  Dramatic  Poem,"  by  James  A.  Hillhouse.    The 
"Revue  encyclop&lique"   (1825,  vol.  XXVIII,  p.  423)  gave  a 
complete  outline  of  the  plot. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      33 

II  y  a  dans  ce  poeme  beaucoup  d'imagination, 
des  situations  tres-dramatiques,  de  1'interet,  et 
souvent  un  grand  charme  de  poesie.  La  pre 
miere  scene  .  .  .  est  remplie  de  beautes  du  pre 
mier  ordre.  .  .  .  Quant  a  Intervention  d'un  agent 
sur  naturel,  c'estune  licence  justifiee  par  plu- 
sieurs  passages  des  saintes-Ecritures.  J'ai  cru 
remarquer  dans  les  discours  de  Hadad  quelques 
reminiscences  du  second  ange  de  Moore,  dans 
son  poeme  des  "  Amours  des  Anges."  II  y  a 
aussi  ga  et  la  des  mots  empruntes  sans  doute 
aux  coutumes  et  aux  mceurs  des  Hebreux,  mais 
dont  le  sens  est  obscur  .  .  .  il  faut  une 
couleur  generale  qui  se  retrouve  partout.  Une 
peinture  historique  a  son  harmonie  comme  un 
tableau. 

There  appears  to  be  little  enough  here  that  is 
distinctively  criticism  of  American  literature; 
except  —  and  the  point  indicates  the  general 
opinion  as  it  had  already  been  formed  —  except 
that  suspicion  of  the  reviewer  of  a  resemblance 
between  Hadad  and  the  second  angel  of  Moore's 
" Loves  of  the  Angels"  .  .  .  ;  also  excepting, 
perhaps,  the  tone  of  the  feeling  as  to  borrowed 
words  betokening  a  certain  crudity  in  the  com 
position.  Borrowed  words  marched  by  bat^tal- 
ions  into  French  poetry  after  Victor  Hugo,  and 
after  Leconte  de  Lisle  some  thirty  years  later;22 
yet  they  have  not  generally  been  thought  in 

22  V.  Nyrop:  "  Grammaire  historique  de  la  langue  frangaise" 
(2me  eU,  1904),  vol.  I,  pp.  105-6. 


34      FRENCH    CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

themselves  jarring  or  disparate;  it  is  only  their 
overuse  or  their  misuse  that  constitutes  a 
fault.  Here  again,  as  always,  the  reviewer  does 
not  express  himself  at  sufficient  length,  and  all 
that  one  can  be  sure  of  is  that  there  was  a  feeling 
that  such  questions  in  American  poetry  de 
manded  only  mention,  not  analysis. 

But  the  tendency  to  discover  worth  in  Ameri-4 
can  literature  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  in  some 
way  distinctively  American  may  have  had  some 
thing  to  do  with  the  tone  of  opinion  upon  an 
oriental  poem  like  "Hadad,"  or  upon  any  other 
exotic  inspiration  —  for  exoticism  in  America  wras 
not  distinguished  from  imitation  in  the  cold  and 
heartless  sense  that  admits  of  no  inspiration. 
Richard  Dana's  poems23  got  a  review  in  point: 

Si  Ton  suppose  que  la  literature  americaine 
est  fille  de  Pinde*pendance,  on  admettra  sans 
peine  que  les  pays  affranchis  ne  manquerent 
point  de  bardes,  que  la  poe*sie  prit  part  &  toutes 
les  solennit6s  nationales,  ce*le"bra  les  6ve"ne- 
ments  glorieux  pour  la  patrie,  d^plora  ses  in- 
fortunes,  exprima,  dans  toutes  les  circonstances, 
les  affections  et  les  vceux  des  citoyens.  Le 

23  "Poems,"  Boston,  1827,  reviewed  in  the  "Revue  ency- 
clop&lique,"  1828,  vol.  XXXVIII,  p.  686,  by  "Y."  This  sig 
nature  does  not  appear  under  any  review  of  poetry  of  special 
interest  except  this  one.  Like  most  of  the  writers  of  these 
short  notice*,  the  full  name  is  a  little  hard  to  come  at,  and 
probably  it  is  not  worth  while  to  search  it  out;  that  the  opinion 
is  printed  in  the  fewest  possible  words,  and  found  its  circula 
tion  in  that  form,  is  the  fact,  and  a  sufficient  one. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      35 

recueil  des  poemes  historiques  d'un  peuple  fait 
partie  de  ses  annales  aussi  bien  que  de  sa  lit- 
terature.  M.  Dana  n'a  pas  consacre  ses  chants 
a  des  sujets  nationaux,  quoiqu'il  ait  orne  de  ses 
vers  quelques  traditions  ou  contes  populaires 
dans  Tune  des  pieces  de  ce  recueil,  intitulee: 
"Le  Boucanier."  II  choisit  des  sujets  tristes  et 
touchants;  il  se  plait  a  depeindre  les  souff  ranees 
de  deux  amants  aux  prises  avec  Fadversite, 
se*pares  un  moment  par  la  mort,  reunis  enfin 
dans  le  meme  tombeau.  II  semble  que  son 
talent  serait  mieux  place  en  Europe  qu'en  Ame*- 
rique,  que  ses  accents  y  trouveraient  plus 
d'  echos:  et,  si  cette  observation  est  juste,  on  ne 
devra  pas  la  negliger,  lorsque  Ton  comparera 
Fancien  monde  au  nouveau,  quant  a  la  situation 
morale  des  habitants. 

What  could  there  be  in  the  American  char 
acter  that  could  make  sorrow  and  melan 
choly,  always  two  of  the  strongest  motives  of 
poetic  expression,  strange  and  dissonant  ele 
ments  in  life?  "II  semble  que  son  talent  serait 
mieux  place  en  Europe  qu'en  Amerique  .  .  .  ," 
yet  Richard  Dana  was  certainly  American.  In 
deed  it  would  seem  that  the  nation  that  would 
pass  such  opinions  upon  another  could  hardly  be 
trusted  to  judge.  Yet  it  is,  after  all,  only  an 
example  of  the  careless  classification  method 
that  is  the  first  step  toward  right  judgment  of 
imperfectly  known  facts;  and  the  United  States 
after  all,  were,  relatively  so  unimportant  in 


36      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

letters,  and  so  hard  to  know  intimately.  But 
although  relatively  unimportant  in  letters,  they 
were  almost  supremely  important  in  theoreti 
cal  politics.  Surely  the  Americans  themselves 
must  appreciate  and  revere  even  more  than 
Europe  those  principles  they  had  upheld  and 
with  which  they  were  in  continual,  invigorat 
ing  contact.  This  great  ideal  would  permeate 
and  inspire  them  in  their  best  expression: 
"If  one  supposes  American  literature  to  be 
the  daughter  of  independence  .  .  .  ,"  says  the 
French  reviewer.  .  .  . 

However,  there  is  the  possibility,  as  was 
suggested,  that  the  French  were  wide  of  the 
mark  in  setting  up  their  standards  for  estimat 
ing  American  poetry;  seeking  where  there  was 
little  to  be  found,  and  neglecting  those  char 
acteristics —  such  as  Dana's  —  that  might  have 
furnished  an  index  to  the  real  manner  of 
thought  and  feeling  in  the  United  States 
they  misunderstood. 

In  spite  of  their  misconception,  they  do  not 
often  fall  into  an  excess  of  praise:  Willis's  col 
lection  of  American  poetry  upon  local  tradi 
tions  and  legends,  published  in  1828,  although 
not  of  the  lineage  of  political  poems,  is  of  that 
other  hardly  less  popular  one  of  nature  and 
Indian  lore.24  Willis's  method  seems  to  have 

24  "Revue  encyclopSdique,"  1829,  vol.  XLI,  pp.  169-70, 
review  signed  "Lamst." 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      37 

been  rather  the  promotion  of  new  production 
than  the  gathering  together  of  poems  already 
written;  his  volume  is  thus  described: 

.  .  .  une  collection  de  quarante  nouvelles  ou 
legendes,  fondees  sur  des  traditions  et  embellie 
par  la  description  pittoresque  des  vallees,  des 
forets  immenses,  des  lacs  majestueux  de 
1'Amerique  du  Nord.  .  .  . 

With  such  a  beginning,  it  was  almost  inevi 
table  that  the  collection  should  be  designated  a 
little  later  on  as  "ce  charmant  volume/'  How 
ever,  a  certain  very  constant  criticism  reappears: 

.  .  .  les  pieces  de  vers  sont  assez  bien  tour- 
n6es,  mais  elles  manquent  pour  la  plupart 
d'originalite. 

And  then  follows  a  rather  cavalierly  introduced : 

Comme  £chantillon  du  prix  que  Ton  offre 
aux  auteurs  americains,  nous  ajouterons  que 
M.  Willis  previent  qu'il  paiera  un  dollar  (six 
francs)  par  page  de  prose;  ou  vingt-quatre 
dollars  par  feuille  d'impression. 

The  "  Token,"  of  1830  25  received  an  ultra- 
complimentary  mention  that  will  hardly  fit  in 
with  anything  else  to  be  found  in  this  period. 
Probably  there  is  no  one  who  would  give  it 

26  The  "Token,"  edited  by  S.  G.  Goodrich,  1830,  published 
in  Boston  by  Carter  &  Hendee,  and  sold  by  Hector  Bossange 
in  Paris,  (prix  10  fr.);  notice  in  "Revue  encyclope*dique,"  vol. 
XLV  (1830),  p.  104. 


38      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

the  name  of  criticism  at  all,  and  yet  for  com 
pleteness  it  may  be  as  well  to  cite  it: 

...  la  lecture  de  plusieurs  pieces  nous  per- 
met  de  decider  que  les  productions  litte>aires 
du  Massachusetts  et  du  Connecticut  ne  seraient 
pas  tout  a  fait  indignes  de  figurer  &  cot6  des 
pieces  du  meme  genre  que  publient  les  Cole 
ridge,  les  Rogers,  les  Campbell,  les  Southey, 
les  Walter  Scott,  les  Hemans,  et  les  Landon.  .  .  . 

Ultra-complimentary  is  hardly  the  term  that 
one  would  apply  to  "not  absolutely  unworthy 
to  be  placed  with  the  poems  of  the  same  kind" 
of  the  chief  English  writers  of  the  day —  an  almost 
doubtful  compliment,  indeed,  were  we  not  fa 
miliar  with  wrhat  was  generally  expressed  about 
American  poetry.26 

26  "Amer  Khan,  and  other  Poems,"  by  Lucretia  Maria 
Davidson,  collected  by  Samuel  F.  B.  Morf,  [sic]  are  noted  in 
the  list  of  new  books  in  the  "Journal  des  Savants"  for  June, 
1830,  p.  384.  And  Mme  Belloc  wrote  a  few  appreciative  lines 
in  the  "Revue  encyclop&lique"  (1830,  vol.  XLVI,  pp.  130-3) 
upon  the  same  collection. 

"The  Life  and  Letters,  together  with  Poetical  and  Miscella 
neous  Pieces"  of  Wm.  Person,  reviewed  in  the  "Revue  encyclo- 
p&lique,"  1822,  vol.  XIV,  p.  109,  had  likewise  received  a  notice 
as  appreciative,  no  doubt,  as  the  work  deserved:  "Ses  vers 
harmonieux  et  faciles  respirent  quelquefois  une  me"lancolie 
touchante;  mais  on  y  retrouve  toujours  le  sentiment  de  la 
divinite*,  une  confiance  inalterable  dans  sa  bonte*  et  sa  mise*ri- 
corde."  Remembering  the  remarks  upon  Richard  Dana's 
poems  in  1828,  it  is  not  hard  to  understand  that  it  did  not  occur 
to  the  reviewer  to  consider  Person  in  any  way  as  an  American 
poet.  The  sincere  opinion  would  not  frame  with  any  current 


FRENCH   CRITICISM  OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      39 

Little  as  there  was  in  France  about  American 
literature  up  to  the  year  1830,  upon  the  side  of 
poetry,  there  was  even  less  upon  prose.  Cer 
tainly,  if  American  literature  has  earned  a 
name  in  Europe  so  far,  it  has  hardly  been  for 
its  poetic  production;  on  the  contrary,  in  prose, 
particularly  in  the  short  story  and  in  the  novel, 
the  reputation  of  this  country  has  been  very 
high  abroad;  and  of  all  our  prose- writers  few 
have  been  more  popular  than  Cooper  and 
Irving. 

Of  Cooper  there  are  the  following  notices: 

M.  Cooper  est  le  Walter-Scott  de  FAme'rique: 
ses  romans,  inspires  par  ceux  du  celebre  Ecos- 
sais,  se  rattachent  toujours  a  Phistoire  de  son 
pays.  (Follows  an  outline  of  the  plot  of  "The 
Last  of  the  Mohicans.")  On  trouve  trop 
souvent  peut-etre  dans  ce  roman  des  scenes  de 
combats  et  de  batailles;  le  denoument  est 
peut-etre  aussi  trop  tragique  .  .  .  mais  Finteret 
y  est  vivement  excite,  et  1'auteur  a  su  peindre 
avec  un  art  admirable  la  nature  inculte  de  ce 
pays,  et  les  mceurs  sauvages  de  ses  habitants.27 

theory  about  American  characteristics.  Lucretia  Maria  David 
son  and  Person  are  exceptions;  generally  what  was  produced 
here  was  considered  particularly  in  its  national,  or  supposedly 
national,  significance. 

27  "The  Last  of  the  Mohicans,"  New  York,  1825;  noted  in 
the  "Revue  encyclopeMique,"  1826,  vol.  XXX,  pp.  703-4.  The 
reviewer  indicates  the  edition  probably  used  by  him:  "Get 
ouvrage  a  e"te"  reimprime*  a  Londres,  1826,  J.  Miller,  3  vol.  in-8°; 
puis  traduit  et  publiS  en  francais,  Paris,  1826,  Gosselin,  3  vol. 


40      FRENCH   CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

Defauconpret's  translation  of  Cooper,  in  1827, 
received  a  longer  notice  the  following  year,  and 
one  of  the  few  of  the  period  under  treatment 
that  really  merits  in  some  respects  the  name  of 
review,  in  that  there  is  an  attempt  made  at 
some  sort  of  analysis  and  that  historical  fact 
and  not  individual  taste  is  made  the  basis  for 
the  judgment  rendered;  the  article  is  signed 
"B.  J."  (probably  Bernard  Jullien): 

Lorsque  les  premiers  ouvrages  de  M.  Cooper 
parurent  a  Paris,  les  romans  historiques  de 
Walter  Scott  6taient  de*ja  connus  en  France 
depuis  plusieurs  ann6es;  et  telle  £tait  1'avidite* 
du  public  pour  ce  genre  d'£crits,  telle  £tait 
1'admiration  que  Fauteur  £cossais  avait  g6ne*- 
ralement  excite*e,  que  Ton  crut  devoir  lui  faire 
honneur  &  la  fois  de  Tinvention  et  de  la  per 
fection  du  genre  oil  il  excellait.  On  ne  voulait 
admettre  ni  concurrence  ni  comparaison  avec 
lui.  ...  La  v^rite*  se  faisait  jour  n6anmoins 
.  .  .  il  arrivait  de  cette  polemique  .  .  .  que  le 
gotit  du  public,  fortement  prononce*  pour  tout 
ce  qui  rappelait  des  souvenirs  historiques,  fit 
naitre  une  multitude  d'autres  ouvrages  du  meme 
genre.  .  .  . 

...  les  qualite*s  du  c61ebre  romancier  am6ri- 
cain  lui  sont  propres,  tandis  que  ses  d^fauts 
appartiennent  en  grande  partie  &  celui  qu'il 
imite.  .  .  .  (Outlines  of  Cooper's  novels  fol 
low.) 

Les  qualite*s  qui  distinguent  g£n6ralement  les 
romans  de  M.  Cooper  sont  les  suivantes:  un 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      41 

interet  toujours  croissant  et  £gal  a  celui  que 
Walter  Scott  et  Wander  Velde  ont  su  repandre 
dans  leurs  ouvrages;  F  observation  exacte  des 
localites,  et  une  verite  constamment  soutenue 
dans  les  caracteres;  enfin,  une  peinture  des 
passions  tellement  vive  qu'il  fait  toujours 
partager  au  lecteur  celles  qu'il  prete  a  ses 
personnages.  .  .  .  (But  Cooper  has  certain 
faults:) 

Je  mets  au  premier  rang  la  manje  de  faire 
son  roman  en  quatre  volumes.  On  est  force, 
pour  arriver  a  ce  nombre^d'avoir  recours  a  un 
usage  immodere  des  dialogues  .  .  .  Walter 
Scott  a  mis  a  -la  mode  ce  moyen  d'allonger  un 
livre.  .  .  . 

Un  autre  caractere  de  tous  les  auteurs  qui 
appartiennent  a  1'ecole  de  Walter  Scott,  c'est 
Femploi  de  personnages  en  quelque  sorte  sur- 
naturels  et  qui  exercent  sur  les  autres  acteurs 
une  influence  merveilleuse,  qui  trop  souvent 
n'est  pas  expliquee:  TEspion,  le  Pilote,  Lincoln 
le  pere,  sont  des  etres  de  ce  genre.  Sous  le 
rapport  de  Tinteret,  on  aurait  tort  de  s'en 
plaindre;  car  nous  sommes  tous  tellement  amis 
du  merveilleux,  que  nous  ne  pouvons  nous  en 
detacher,  sous  quelque  forme  qu'il  se  presente 
.  .  .  mais  .  .  .  dans  un  roman  destine  a  peindre 
la  societe  au  sein  de  laquelle  nous  vivons, 
j'aimerais  mieux  qu'on  ne  presentat  pas  de  ces 
etres  fantastiques.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  un  peu  de  monotonie,  car  il  oppose 
presque  toujours  deux  sceurs  ou  deux  cousines 
ou  deux  amies,  dont  Tune  est  la  sensibilite  meme, 
et  Taut  re  la  gaiete  personnifiee.  .  .  . 

M.  Cooper  est  Tun  des  hommes  que  son  beau 


42      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

talent  et  son  noble  caractere  doivent  le  plus 
faire  estimer.  .  .  .M 

Of  Irving  there  is  less:  beside  a  few  incidental 
mentions  in  connection  with  other  American 
writers,  the  following  lines  by  Depping,  in  a 
long  review  dealing  almost  exclusively  with 
the  historical  questions  brought  out  in  the 
"Life  and  Voyages  of  Christopher  Columbus/7 
are  all  that  it  is  of  interest  to  cite  from  the 
literary  point  of  view: 

Le  style  annonce  une  plume  exerce*e;  il  a 
peu  de  vigueur  et  de  nerf;  mais  il  abonde  en 
tableaux  interessants,  et  partout  oil  il  a  fallu  de 
Pe'le'gance  et  du  naturel,  1'auteur  a  de'ploye' 
beaucoup  de  talent.  Sa  narration  marche  par- 
faitement,  tout  y  est  bien  expose*,  sans  con 
fusion,  sans  effort;  il  y  a  des  passages  pleins 
de  charmes.  .  .  .  L'auteur  a  seme*  sa  narration 
de  reflexions  judicieuses  qui  naissent  du  sujet 
et  arrivent  toujours  &  propos.29 

After  these  disappointing  notices  —  disap 
pointing  when  one  reflects  that  the  works  were 

28  Cooper:  "(Euvres  completes"  traduites  de  1'anglais  par 
A.  J.  B.  Defauconpret,  Paris,  1827,  Gosselin;    28  vol.  in-12°; 
prix  84  fr.  —  The  notice  quoted  appeared  in  the  "  Revue  ency- 
clop&Iique,"  1827,  vol.  XXXVI,  pp.  346-360. 

29  Irving:  "History  of  the  Life  and  Voyages  of  Christopher 
Columbus,"  Paris,  1828,  Baudry,  4  vol.  (&)  Le  meme  ouvrage, 
traduit  de  1'anglais  par  C.  A.  Defauconpret  fils,  traducteur  de 
lf  "Histoire  d'ficosse"  par  sir  Walter  Scott;    Paris,  1828,  Ch. 
Gosselin,  4  vol.     The  review  cited  is  in  the  "Revue  encyclo- 
p&lique,"  1828,  vol.  XXXIX,  pp.  95-109. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      43 

considered  sufficiently  interesting  to  merit  trans 
lation —  is  it  worth  while  to  call  attention  to 
the  banal  indications  of  Miss  Sedgwick's  "  Red 
wood/'30  of  her  "  Travelers/ ' 31  of  the  anony 
mous  "Redfield,  a  Tale  of  the  Seventeenth 
Century, "  32  of  the  novel  "  What  is  Gentility?"  33 
Two  notices,  however,  furnish  a  certain  in 
terest,  the  one  by  naming  the  principal  American 
authors  as  the  French  judged  them,  the  other 
because  it  illustrates  the  British  ascendancy 
over  French  criticism  of  American  literature  at 
this  time. 

30  H.  D. Sedgwick,  brother  of  the  authoress,  sends  the  "Revue 
encyclope"dique"   a  "  Reclamation  au  sujet  de  la  traduction 
frangaise  de  'Redwood'  (Paris,  Boulland,  1824,  4  vol.),"  —  id.t 
1825,  vol.  XXVI,  p.  889.    He  informs  the  editors  that  "Red 
wood"  is  not,  as  the  translator  stated,  by  Cooper,  but  by  Miss 
Sedgwick;    taking  occasion  to  explain,  apropos  of  the  novel, 
the  difference  between  the  Shakers  and  the  Quakers.  .  .  . 

31  Notice  in  "Revue  encyclope"dique,"   1825,  vol.  XXVII, 
p.  132.    The  work  is  simply  referred  to  as  a  good  child's  book  of 
travel. 

32  Reviewed  in  "Rev.  ency.,"  1825,  vol.  XXVIII,  pp.  445-6. 
"...  Mais  1'ouvrage  offre  d'ailleurs  une  sorte  de  me'rite  .  .  . 
il  retrace  les  lieux,  les  temps,  les  moeurs  .  .  .  le  lieu  de  la  scene 
est  Long-Island  ...  on  y  retrouve  en  action  les  re"cits  de 
Charlevoix  et  de  Creve-Cceur;    on  y  reconnait  les  scenes  plus 
re*cemment  et  si  bien  esquisse*es  par  le  colonel  Timberlake  et 
M.  Perrin-Dulac.    C'est  1&  selon  moi,  le  me'rite  de  cet  opuscule, 
et  ce  me'rite  n'est  pas  commun." 

33  Reviewed  by  Lamst  in  the  "Rev.  ency,"  1829,  vol.  XLI, 
pp.  147-8:   An  outline  of  the  plot,  and  then:  "Ce  joli  roman  est 
rempli  d'inte"ret,  le  dialogue  est  vif  et  spirituel,  les  scenes  bien 
amene"es,  les  Episodes  lie's  avec  gout  au  sujet  principal.    Le  but 
de  1'auteur  a  e"te"  de  prouver  la  ne"cessite"  d'une  bonne  Education." 


44      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

Depuis  un  an  ou  deux,  says  Madame  Belloc,34 
apropos  of  Paulding's  anonymously  published 
"  Koningsmarke,  the  Long  Finne,"  TAm^rique 
a  produit  plusieurs  auteurs  distingu6s.  M. 
Washington  Irving  a  e*t6  le  premier  a  s'£lancer 
dans  la  carriere  romantique;  plusieurs  de  ses 
contemporains  Py  ont  suivi.  M.  Cooper,  dans 
"L/Espion"  et  "Les  Pionniers,"  s'est  montr6 
r&eve  d'un  grand  maitre,  sir  Walter  Scott,  mais 
il  rappelle  trop  souvent  qu'il  n'est  qu'imitateur. 
Cependant,  il  faut  f&iciter  PAm6rique  de  ces 
conquetes.  ...  Si  elle  n'est  pas  riche  en  tradi 
tions  anciennes,  elle  offre  a  ses  historiens  des 
sites  sublimes,  les  traits  6nergiques  d'un  peuple 
fondateur.  .  .  .  Ce  n'est  point  ce  qu'a  voulu 
peindre  Pauteur  du  roman  que  nous  annongons 
...  la  plupart  .  .  .  du  genre  comique.  II  y 
a  dans  son  ouvrage  des  v6rite*s  d'ensemble, 
mais  peu  de  ces  nuances  d£licates  qui  annoncent 
une  observation  de  la  nature. 

Always  the  same  feeling  evident  on  the  part 
of  France:  America  was  the  land  of  nature; 
the  American  should  depict  nature,  and  Ameri 
can  nature.  .  .  . 

Of   "The  Humours  of  Eutopia"35  there   is 

(The  title  is  translated  as  "Qu'est-ce  que  les  gens  comme  il 
faut?"  In  a  note,  the  following:)  "Ce  charmant  ouvrage, 
qu'on  lira  toujours  avec  plaisir,  vient  d'6tre  traduit  en  frangais, 
et  parattra  incessamment  chez  M.  Se*dillot,  libraire,  rue  d'Enfer, 
no.  18." 

M  Reviewed  in  the  "Rev.  ency.,"  1824,  vol.  XXI,  p.  136. 

36  "The  Humours  of  Eutopia"  .  .  .  par  un  Eutopien.  Phila 
delphia,  1828,  Carey,  2  vok,  reviewed  in  "Rev.  ency.,"  1828, 
vol.  XL,  pp.  651-2,  by  "Y." 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      45 

practically  nothing,  but  apropos  of  that  novel 
a  great  deal  about  the  critic: 

"L'auteur  de  ce  roman  a  cesse  de  vivre; 
c'etait  un  jeune  homme  de  grande  espe"- 
rance.  .  .  ." 

Get  avertissement  des  editeurs  a  sans  doute 
procure  a  1'ouvrage  de  nombreux  lecteurs  en 
Amerique:  en  Europe,  on  fera  plus  d'attention 
au  merite  litteraire,  a  1'originalite.  .  .  . 

Avant  de  juger  V  "Eutopie"  eu  France,  et 
de  la  faire  passer  dans  notre  langue,  on  fera  bien 
de  consulter  nos  voisins  d'outre-mer.  Us  ont 
conserve*  plus  que  nous  la  connaissance  des 
mceurs  des  tribus  indigenes  de  PAmerique.  .  .  . 
Si  les  Anglais  font  a  ce  roman  un  accueil  em- 
presse,  nos  traducteurs  pourront  se  mettre  a 
1'ceuvre,  mais  si  le  public  de  Londres  neglige  la 
nouvelle  production  americaine,  les  Parisiens 
la  recevraient  plus  froidement  encore.  .  .  . 

Such  frank,  one  might  well  say  such  cynical 
admissions,  are  very  rare;  but  the  evidence  is 
none  the  less  manifold  that  they  would  have 
been  appropriate  for  much  of  the  criticism  before 
1830  relative  to  this  subject. 

However  the  originality  of  criticism  upon 
what  was  known  may  impress  us,  whatever  we 
may  think  of  the  interesting  fact  that  American 
works  were  translated  into  French  and  pub 
lished  in  Paris  without  receiving  more  than  a 
few  cursory  lines  of  notice  in  the  most  liberal 
reviews,  it  remains  certain  that  but  little,  in 
sum  total,  was  known  of  American  literature. 


46      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

Little  got  through  to  France,  and  with  that 
little  acquaintance  was  but  slowly  made:  it 
will  be  noticed  that  the  French  reviews  gener 
ally  appeared  from  one  to  two  or  three  years 
after  the  first  publication  in  America  of  the 
works  considered  —  not  infrequently,  however, 
on  the  very  eve  of  any  London  reprint.  .  .  . 

Had  it  not  been  for  one  publicist,  Marc- 
Antoine  Jullien,  "celui  qu'on  appelait  Jullien 
de  Paris/7  says  Sainte-Beuve,36  qui,  jeune,  s'6tait 
fait  tristement  connaitre  par  son  fanatisme 
r6volutionnaire,  et  qui,  vieux,  tachait  de  faire 
oublier  ses  anciens  exces  par  son  zele  honorable 
de  fondateur  de  la  "  Revue  encyclop^dique 
.  .  . "  -  had  it  not  been  for  the  interest  of 
Jullien,  it  is  probable  that  not  a  dozen  critical 
notices  of  our  literature  could  have  been  found 
from  the  pens  of  French  critics  before  1830. 
That  America  realized  the  fact,  is  evidenced  in 
a  sort  of  semi-official  recognition  on  the  part  of 
the  Columbian  Institute  of  Washington  (founded 
1816).  The  "Revue  encyclop6dique "  37  says: 

L'Institut  Colombien  vient  d'adresser  un  di- 
plome  de  membre  correspondant  a  M.  Marc- 
Antoine  Jullien,  de  Paris,  auteur  de  T  "Essai 
sur  Temploi  du  temps, "  et  fondateur-directeur 
de  la  "Revue  encyclop6dique,"  en  lui  t6moi- 

86  "Nouveaux  Lundis"  (Calmann-L6vy),  t.  X,  p.  245,  4 
septembre,  1865,  in  the  article  on  Ch.  Duveyrier's  lectures  on 
"La  Civilisation  et  la  Democratic  francaise." 

17  "Rev.  ency.,"  1828,  vol.  XXXVIII,  pp.  228-9. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      47 

gnant  combien  les  Americains  sont  reconnais- 
sants  du  soin  avec  lequel,  depuis  dix  ans  qu'il 
est  fonde,  ce  recueil  s'est  attache  constamment 
a  mieux  faire  connaitre  a  TEurope  les  travaux 
et  les  progres  de  FAmerique  du  nord  en  tout 
genre,  et  a  presenter  en  meme  temps  aux 
Americains  un  tableau  curieux  et  instructif  des 
travaux  et  des  progres  des  differents  etats  de 
FEurope  et  des  autres  contrees. 

The  recognition  was  indeed  well  accorded; 
one  searches  in  the  other  French  periodicals  of 
the  time  in  vain  for  critical  remarks;  at  most 
one  meets  now  and  then  with  a  bare  notice  of 
publication  of  an  American  work,  either  in 
English  or  in  French  translation.38 

38  The  following  are  for  the  most  part  merely  announcements 
of  American  books  or  periodicals,  or  brief  extracts  in  translation. 
They  add  nothing  of  interest  to  the  idea  of  the  French  criticism 
of  American  literature  as  it  has  been  found  up  to  this  point: 

John  Eliot's  " Biographical  Dictionary"  announced  in  the 
"Mercure  Stranger,"  vol.  II,  1813,  p.  189. 

Joel  Barlow's  "Columbiad"  noted  in  the  same  year^  vol.  I, 
pp.  384-6.  Barlow's  contention  that  modern  warfare  is  very 
apt  to  inspire  the  poet,  is  given  in  a  translated  extract  from  his 
preface  to  that  epic,  where  he  enlarges  on  the  impressive  nature 
of  modern  battles. 

The  same  periodical  (vol.  II,  1813,  pp.  74  and  75)  publishes 
prose  translations  signed  "S  .  .  .  £"  of  Mrs.  Hunter's  "Death- 
Song  of  an  Indian  Cherokee  Warrior"  and  of  the  Rev.  James 
Whartoix's  "  Dying  Peruvian  Cacique."  The  taste  for  senti 
mental  reflections  upon  the  "good  savage"  has  been  noticed. 
James  Montgomery's  "Wanderer  in  Switzerland"  was  announced 
without  criticism  in  the  same  periodical,  in  1814  (vol.  Ill, 
p.  360). 


48      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

The  "Mercure  de  France"  published,  in  1817  (vol.  II,  p. 
605),  the  translation  of  an  article  by  A.  Jay  on  M.  de  la  Pom- 
meraie,  with  this  note:  "M.  Benjamin  Russell,  e"diteur  du 
journal  ame>icain  'The  Columbian  Centinel',  publia  Tarticle 
suivant,  le  26  aout,  1805."  The  article  was  entitled  "The 
Quaker."  The  notice  is,  of  course,  of  interest  merely  because  it 
shows  that  "The  Columbian  Centinel"  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
editors  of  the  "Mercure  de  France."  The  following  is  given 
for  a  similar  reason;  it  is  taken  from  the  "Mercure  Stranger" 
(vol.  Ill,  1814,  p.  434):  The  (New  York)  "Analectic  Maga 
zine"  .  .  .  "qui  contient  la  critique  des  journaux  d'Angleterre" 
is  announced,  and  this  brief  estimate  of  Irving  appended: 
"L'auteur  .  .  .  est  M.  Izving  [sic]  de  New- York,  jeune  homme 
plein  de  talents,  ainsi  que  1'ont  reconnu  les  Anglais  mcmes  dans 
I'ouvrage  pe"riodique  qui  a  paru  pendant  quelque  temps  a  New- 
York,  intitule":  'Salmagundi.'" 


Ill 

1830-1835 

THE  period  of  notices  padded  with  a  cer 
tain  subjective  criticism  that,  indeed,  hardly 
deserves  the  name,  draws  to  a  close  with  the 
year  1830  approximately.  At  least,  so  much 
may  be  said,  as  compared  with  the  later  period, 
—  that  following  1835. 

In  making  this  contrast,  however,  two  consid 
erations  present  themselves,  and  should  doubt 
less  be  stressed  somewhat,  as  serving  to  give  a 
more  exact  idea  of  the  nature  of  this  change. 
Exploration  is,  after  all,  but  the  preliminary  to 
the  map:  each  fact,  as  it  is  discerned,  is  taken 
for  its  own  sake.  It  is  of  primary  importance, 
but  until  its  place  with  relation  to  its  sur 
roundings  is  known,  it  is  misunderstood:  if  a 
generalization  is  attempted  upon  the  basis  of 
this  fact,  or  of  scattered  facts  not  yet  corre 
lated,  the  generalization  will  be  worthless,  or  if 
fairly  enduring,  then  only  so  by  chance.  Cer 
tainly  the  French  were  explorers  in  our  litera 
ture  during  the  period  just  studied;  and  on  the 
whole,  with  this  important  fact  well  realized, 
should  we  not,  after  all,  accord  to  the  brevity 
of  their  notices  a  certain  appropriateness,  and 
admit  that,  for  whatever  reason,  they  felt  that 

49 


50      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

the  time  for  criticism  properly  speaking  was  not 
yet  come,  and  consequently  refrained  from  its 
practice?'  The  second  fact  is,  possibly,  less 
creditable  from  the  critical  point  of  view,  but 
represents  a  clinging  to  an  ideal  —  the  one 
noticed  at  the  beginning  of  this  study.  The 
year  1835,  although  it  seems  to  be  the  starting 
point  of  the  body  of  properly  critical  study  of 
American  literature,  is  however  far  from  putting 
a  term  to  the  sort  of  opinions  which  have  been 
seen  thus  far.  In  fact,  the  ideal,  the  foregone 
conclusion  consequently,  of  what  America  should 
be,  will  tinge  the  conception  of  all  French 
writers  far  into  the  century,  if  not,  indeed 
throughout  and  up  to  the  present  time.  The 
ideal  will  be  manifest  in  two  ways;  for  in  exact 
proportion  as  men  had  the  traditional  faith  in 
the  land,  the  contrast  between  that  faith  and 
the  fact  that  men  seemed  really  unchanged  by 
its  influence  will  be  clear-cut  and  disappointing. 
Enter  here  the  "  Yankee,"  as  the  term  is  under 
stood  abroad,  and  the  American  wanderer  in 
Europe  taken  as  the  type  either  of  snobbism  or 
of  discontent  with  a  purely  material  ideal — and 
all  the  rest  of  the  reverse  of  the  medal. 

So  far  there  seems  to  have  been  but  an  im 
perfect  distinction  between  the  ideal  of  the 
potency  of  the  unspoiled  wilderness,  and  the 
influence  of  the  democratic  ideal  upon  men.  In 
a  sense,  to  be  sure,  the  two  conceptions  are 


FRENCH   CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      51 

identical  in  their  conclusions:  the  type  of  man 
representing  either  will  be  an  individual  un 
hampered  by  tradition,  with  its  prejudice  and 
its  tyranny.  But  the  man  communing  with 
nature  will  develop  in  his  freedom  ideal  impres 
sions  and  instincts;  he  who  represents  the  per 
fect  civil  arrangement  will  be  the  creature  of  a 
community  of  thought.  The  former  will  be 
the  poet,  the  latter  the  philosopher.  The  op 
posite  of  the  man  of  nature  is  the  degenerate; 
the  opposite  of  the  democrat  is  the  tyrant.  It  is 
a  little  hard  to  say  which  of  these  negative  con 
ceptions  more  nearly  approximates  the  unfav 
orable  estimate  that  we  shall  have  sometimes 
to  encounter;  but  it  is  only  reasonable  to  sup 
pose,  in  view  of  the  respect  entertained  abroad 
for  certain  American  scientists  and  historians, 
and  the  comparatively  doubtful  acceptance  of 
our  poets,  that  France  felt  that  Americans  had 
proved  themselves  rather  as  citizens,  as  emi 
nently  reasoning  and  reasonable;  that  on  the 
other  hand  they  had  failed  in  their  opportunity 
to  become  the  poets  of  mankind. 

Such  generalizations  are  bound  to  be  a  little 
thin-drawn,  yet  they  are  not  necessarily  alto 
gether  intangible.  Adelaide  Montgolfier,  bas 
ing  a  review  of  the  question  upon  the  works  of 
James  M'Henry,  Emma  Willard,  and  the  anthol 
ogy  of  George  Cheever  entitled  the  "  American 
Commonplace  Book  of  Poetry,"  and  writing  in 


52      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

1831,  indicates  certain  parts  of  what  has  just 
been  said:1 

C'est  vainement  que  les  critiques  de  New- 
York  pr£tendent  que  'le  ge*nie  de  la  poesie,  en 
de*sertant  1'Angleterre,  va  se  r£fugier  sur  leurs 
rivages;  que  la  vie  positive  est  Te'le'ment  dans 
lequel  les  Muses  vivent  et  se  meuvent.  .  .  .' 
(' 'North  American  Review "  —October,  1831,  pp. 
298-9)  Bref,  c'est  en  vain  que  la  "  Revue  am6ri- 
caine"  assure  que  la  doctrine  r£trecie  d'int6ret 
et  de  bien-etre  individuel  qui  font  la  prosp^rite* 
actuelle  de  I'Am^rique  favorisent  1'essor  de  la 
poesie  ef  des  arts.  Loin  de  1&,  les  luttes  de 
r^go'isme  mercantile  leur  sont  antipath^tiques. 

Les  pr6c6dents  font  les  sciences  et  tuent  la 
poesie:  car,  plus  Thomme  est  pres  de  la  nature, 
plus  il  est  poete;  les  Americains  ont  derriere 
eux  pour  faner  la  fraicheur  de  leurs  images,  pour 
user  et  £puiser  leur  langue,  tout  la  literature 
anglaise.  Aussi  c'est  chez  les  Natchez,  les 
Wampanoags,  les  Iroquois,  les  Mohicans,  les 
mille  tribus  des  bois,  des  prairies,  des  lacs  et 
des  rives  des  fleuves  qu'il  faut  chercher  les 
po&tes  du  Nouveau-Monde.  .  .  .  Cooper  Ta 
senti,  et  c'est  au  matelot  qui  s'identifie  avec  son 
vaisseau  et  dort  a  la  musique  des  vagues;  c'est 
&  PIndien  dont  Tesprit  erre  dans  les  bois  avec 
les  brises,  dont  les  regards  plongent  dans  les 
savannes,  qu'il  a  demande*  des  inspirations  et 

1  Jas.  M'Henry:  "The  Pleasures  of  Friendship";  Emma 
Willard:  "The  Fulfillment  of  a  Promise";  Geo.  B.  Cheever: 
"The  American  Commonplace  Book  of  Poetry,"  Boston,  1831. 
The  review,  signed  "Ade.  M.,"  appeared  in  the  "Revue  ency- 
clop6dique,"  1831,  vol.  LII,  pp.  432-9. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      53 

une  literature  que  1'Amerique  policee  n'avait 
pas;  mais  ces  tribus  sauvages  meurent,  car  elles 
n'etaient  que  poesie,  et  la  civilisation  epaisse 
et  positive  d'un  peuple  de  commergants  les 
£touffe.  Cooper  a  rafraichi  un  moment  limita 
tion  de  Walter  Scott  dans  ces  sources  de  vie,  de 
telle  sorte  que  nos  premiers  journaux  litteraires 
n'ont  pas  craint  de  le  mettre  au  niveau  et  meme 
au-dessus  du  romancier  historien.  .  .  .  Nean- 
moins  le  son  natif  que  la  lyre  americaine,  j  usque 
la  faible  echo  du  concert  de  la  mere  patrie,  a 
rendu  sous  les  doigts  de  Cooper,  est  isole,  et  la 
longue  liste  des  poetes  et  des  poesies  que  nous 
presente  M.  Cheever,  bien  qu'on  le  loue  de 
n' avoir  rien  oublie  de  saillant,  n'enrichira  pas 
beaucoup  la  litterature.  Ce  n'est  pas  un  nou- 
veau  ton  ajoute  a  rharmonie  du  monde,  c'est 
un  lointain  retentissement. 

What  the  "new  note"  that  was  expected 
might  have  been,  how  the  author  of  the  notice 
would  have  described  its  characteristics,  we  can 
surmise;  yet  the  America  of  the  twentieth 
century  is  witness  that  "the  native  note  of  the 
American  lyre"  —  so  far  as  this  can  be  said  to 
be  in  any  way  the  expression  of  vast  wildernesses 
and  unspoiled  men  —  must  indeed  be  but  "iso 
lated/7  very  temporary  indeed,  and  in  fact,  the 
voice  of  nature  only,  and  not  the  voice  of 
America.  The  wildernesses  disappear,  and  men 
gradually  become  subject  to  the  European 
conditions  of  life.  If  anything  is  typical  of 
American  literature  —  as  of  course  something 


54      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

must  be  —  it  must  be  traced  rather  to  those 
permanent  political  peculiarities  that  distinguish 
the  nation  from  others.  Nowadays,  we  are 
beginning  to  feel  that  another  factor,  not  em 
phasized  —  if  realized  —  at  that  time  in  France, 
the  mingling  of  races  here,  is  possibly  supremely 
important.  But,  in  passing,  there  arises  the 
question  as  to  how  real,  in  fact,  the  humanity 
of  Cooper's  novels  was,  even  in  the  day  of 
immense  forests  and  virgin  prairie.  "  Cooper's 
noble  Indians,  in  fact/'  says  Professor  Barrett 
Wendell,2  "are  rather  more  like  the  dreams  of 
eighteenth-century  France  concerning  aboriginal 
human  nature  than  anything  critically  observed 
by  ethnology;  and  Natty  Bumppo  himself  is  a 
creature  rather  of  romantic  fancy  than  of 
creative  sympathy  with  human  nature." 

A  few  particular  notices  follow  in  the  review 
last  cited,  and  they  are  worth  reproducing  since 
they  concern  certain  names  not  yet  forgotten, 
and  moreover  definitely  state  a  few  of  the  facts 
of  the  English  influence  upon  American  writing, 
as  then  understood: 

Dans  ce  nombreux  essaim  de  poStes  (in 
Cheever's  collection),  je  distinguerai  cependant 
Bryant  et  Dana:  tous  deux  suivent  le  mouve- 
ment  litt£raire  que  Byron,  Scott,  Wordsworth 

2  "A  Literary  History  of  America,"  7th  edit.,  N.Y.4  Scrib- 
ner,  1914,  p.  186;  ibid.,  p.  183,  for  a  remark  upon  the  stylistic 
superiority  of  Cooper  in  translation. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      55 

et  Crabbe  ont  imprime  a  PAngleterre,  et  qui 
s'eteint  dans  les  voix  affaiblies  de  Coleridge  et 
de  Southey.  Mais  ils  ont  mele  aux  impressions 
des  poetes  anglais  quelque  chose  de  leur  propre 
fonds:  il  y  a  de  Temotion  religieuse  dans  les 
chants  eleves  de  Dana.  Wordsworth  qu'il  imite 
sou  vent,  est  certes  plus  harmonieux;  il  a  la 
marche  bien  autrement  souple,  ondoyante  et 
capricieuse;  mais  on  aurait  peine  a  trouver 
dans  les  morceaux  les  mieux  inspires  du  poete 
du  lac  un  enthousiasme  plus  profondement  senti 
qui  celui  qui  s'exhale  dans  quelques  pieces  de 
Dana,  entre  autres  dans  ces  vers  sur  Fimmor- 
talite: 

Ce  saint  mot  est  ecrit  sur  le  rayon  limpide 
Que  la  lune  argentee  epanche  dans  le  vide; 
II  flotte  sous  1'eclat  du  couchant  .  .  . 

Bryant  imite  assez  souvent  les  coupes  des 
stances  de  Byron,  dans  "Don  Juan"  et  "Childe 
Harold."  Cependant  il  s'essaie  vainement  & 
narrer  en  vers.  .  .  .  Et  si  le  nom  du  poete  du  19e 
siecle  vient  un  moment  a  1'esprit  en  lisant  les 
poesies  descriptives  de  Bryant,  c'est  a  des  inspira 
tions  pleines  de  fraicheur  et  d'un  sentiment  de 
jouissance  au  sein  d'une  nature  neuve  et  feconde 
qu'il  le  doit.  .  .  . 

...  "La  Musique  sentimentale "  de  Halleck, 
est  une  gracieuse  chose;  quant  a  Wilcox  .  .  . 
il  nous  deplait  justement  a  cause  de  la  monotone 
langueur  de  ses  descriptions.  .  .  .  Les  vers  de 
M.  Peabody  .  .  .  sont  extremement  tou- 
chants.  ...  . 

Une  hymne  de  Long-Fellow  attire  une  atten 
tion  particuliere,  non  par  des  vers  qui  rappelent, 


56      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

sans  l'£galer,  la  belle  ode  sur  le  g6n6ral  Moore, 
cit£e  par  Byron,  mais  a  cause  du  sujet.3  Elle 
fut  faite  en  Phonneur  du  comte  Pulawski,  noble 
Polonais,  mort  a  Tattaque  de  Savannah,  dans 
la  guerre  de  PInd6pendance.  .  .  . 

(Speaking  of  Emma  Willard :)  II  y  a  une  verve 
bien  touchante,  une  po&ie  bien  haute  dans 
cette  ame  qui  se  consume  comme  de  Tencens  en 
presence  de  la  Divinit6,  parfumant,  £clairant 
tout  autour.  En  commengant  cet  article  je  ne 
voulais  voir  de  source  d'inspirations  que  dans 
les  relations  de  rhomme  avec  la  nature.  II  y 
en  a  une  plus  abondante,  plus  belle  encore: 
c'est  dans  les  relations  d'amour  et  de  d^vodment 
des  hommes  entre  eux.  C'est  la  que  nous  autres 
peuples  civilises  nous  pouvons  vivifier  notre 
literature,  miroir  toujours  si  fidele  de  la  soci6t6. 

The  advance  over  the  sort  of  review  written 
heretofore  is  evident :  —  it  begins  to  be  thought 
worth  while  to  go  into  some  detail.  A  quarter- 
century  of  desultory  reading  of  American  books 
had  given  the  background  that  made  the  detail 
of  interest.  And  certainly  the  author  attempted 
comparisons  and  criticisms  that  were  meant  to 
illustrate  the  American  writers.  What  is  perhaps 
of  the  greatest  importance  to  emphasize  here,  is 
not  the  subjective  character  of  the  first  part  — 
the  characteristic  is  constant  in  the  body  of 
criticism  to  be  studied — but  rather  the  fact  that 
the  article  is,  after  all,  short  and  summary,  and 

8  "The  Hymn  of  the  Moravian  Nuns  of  Bethlehem,"  by 
Longfellow. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      57 

that  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  notice,  not  an  article 
purporting  to  deal  at  all  exhaustively  with  the 
subject.  Had  it  been  so,  the  author  would  have 
explained  to  our  greater  satisfaction  the  grounds 
for  coupling  Byron  and  Scott  with  Wordsworth 
and  Crabbe  as  leaders  in  a  single  movement,  and 
making  Bryant  a  disciple  of  them  all.  Nowa 
days,  such  juggling  with  names  would  perhaps 
seem  akin  to  legerdemain  in  France.  In  any 
case,  granted  that  Bryant  resembled  these  four 
poets,  he  was  a  more  protean  genius  than  we 
now  imagine,  and  the  innately  imitative  char 
acter  of  Americans  will  be  readily  allowed. 

It  is  fortunate  that  the  same  reviewer  has 
left  another  rather  extended  notice,  this  time 
of  a  prose  writer,  thus  giving  an  insight  into 
the  varying  preconceptions  of  American  authors 
in  the  two  forms.4  Incidentally,  these  pages 
contain  a  note  of  dissent  in  regard  to  Irving  and 
Cooper.  We  are  at  first  reminded  that  for  the 
French  these  two  names  have  represented  the 
best  in  American  literature,  but  at  the  same 
time  Irving  is  described  as  having  gotten  the 
utmost  possible  from  a  "  petit  talent  et  d'un 
petit  esprit, "  and  Cooper  receives  the  doubtful 

4  Charles  Brockden  Brown's  Works.  The  review,  signed 
A.  M.  (Adelaide  Montgolfier),  appeared  in  the  "Revue  encyclo- 
pSdique,"  1831,  vol.  XLIX,  pp.  625-7.  She  says:  "il  y  a  pres 
de  trente  ans  qu'un  roman  de  Brown,  traduit  en  frangais,  je 
crois  par  M.  Pigault  de  Mont-Baillard,  sous  le  titre  de  'La 
Famille  Wieland',  re*ve"la  un  talent  original  et  profond." 


58      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 


compliment:  ".  .  .  peu  ont  £t6  plus  que  lui 
tour-a-tour  sublimes  et  bizarres."  They  are 
the  representatives  of  classicism  and  of  roman 
ticism  in  the  New  World.  Those  who  preceded 
these  two  writers  are  considered  "  unimpor 
tant.  "  5  Not  that  the  reviewer  is  of  the  opinion 
that  they  were.  The  name  of  Charles  Brockden 
Brown  is  brought  forward  in  a  manner  calcu 
lated  to  leave  one  in  some  doubt  as  to  whether 
he  was  not  judged  more  worthy  of  fame  than 
the  other  two.  For  us,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  Brown's  works  have  been  several  times 
reprinted  during  the  last  century,6  he  is  hardly 
more  than  a  name  —  the  first  professional 
author,  some  have  said,  in  the  United  States. 
There  has  been  protest  all  along,  on  the  part 
of  those  who  have  studied  his  wrorks,  against 
indifference  toward  him:  he  is  credited  with 
genuine  penetration  as  an  analyst  of  certain  of 
those  workings  of  the  mind  that  impel  —  we 
may  say  —  the  powerless  victim  of  an  initial 
conviction  to  the  logical  acted  conclusion  that 
may  be  contrary  to  all  the  instincts  of  the  doer; 
and  many  have  felt,  in  the  description  of  those 
sombre  undercurrents  of  thought,  a  master's 
talent  in  the  conduct  of  the  elements  of  mystery 

6  "Sont  non  avenus"  is  perhaps  even  a  stronger  expression 
than  the  one  used  to  translate  it. 

6  Boston  in  1827,  Philadelphia  in  1857,  and,  in  a  limited  edi 
tion,  at  Philadelphia  in  1887. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      59 

and  of  terror.  Our  reviewer  voices  this  admira 
tion:  "  'Wieland/  she  says,  revealed  an  original 
and  profound  talent.  It  was  not  a  reproduction 
of  exterior  things,  but  the  conscientious  study 
of  the  heart  of  man,  of  its  mysterious  raging 
(frenesies),  its  resistless  flights.  .  .  ."  How 
original  Brown  was  is  a  delicate  problem,  as 
always,  when  it  is  question  of  a  model  improved 
upon:  for  it  is  not  called  doubtful  that  a  great 
element  in  Brown's  work  was  suggested  by  the 
works  of  the  English  novelist  Godwin.  The 
fact  is  even  admitted  in  the  review,  but  not 
insisted  upon,  in  view  of  the  worth  of  the  later 
writer,  that  set  him  near  enough  his  original 
model  to  make  it  evident  that  he,  too,  had 
power  and  talent.  It  is  in  that  sense  a  sort  of 
parallel  to  the  case  of  Walter  Scott  and  Cooper,, 
except  that  in  the  present  case  the  pupil  is; 
generally  acknowledged  to  have  equalled,  if 
not  surpassed,  the  master. 

In  any  event,  and  whatever  degree  of  truth 
we  may  happen  to  find  in  the  verdicts  rendered,, 
one  fact  is  evident  enough  in  all  this :  both  prose 
writers  and  poets  in  America  were  found  to  imi 
tate  English  models;  but  whereas  no  real  merit 
was  to  be  found  consistently  evidenced  in  the 
American  poets,  elsewhere  it  was  found  to  a 
greater  degree:  "an  original  and  profound  tal 
ent,  "  says  the  reviewer  of  Brown;  but  in  the 
same  writer's  judgment,  the  American  poets 


60      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

had  added  "no  new  note  in  the  world-harmony/' 
only  "a  distant  echo."  The  French  idea  of 
Irving  as  a  litterateur  hardly  frames  with  this 
general  rule,  it  is  true,  but  for  all  that  the  gen 
eral  rule  does  seem  to  exist.  How  much  of  this 
sort  of  criticism  is  due  to  the  commonly  ac 
knowledged  superiority  of  the  prose-writers 
over  the  poets,  —  how  much  to  the  preconception 
regarding  America  that  grew  up  in  France  with 
the  nineteenth  century?  It  would  be  very 
interesting  to  know.  But  since  absolute  demon 
stration  is  impossible  in  such  matters,  the  sug 
gestion  only  is  thrown  out:  that  there  was  such 
a  preconception  does  seem  to  be  the  case  — 
may  in  fact  be  an  important  element  in  the 
history  of  the  idea  studied  here.7 

7  (Rev.)  Ed.  O.  Griffin:  "Remains,"  edited  by  Francis 
Griffin  and  by  John  M.  Vickar,  D.D.,  "professeur  de  philoso 
phic  et  de  morale  au  college  de  Columbia,  New- York,"  1831; 
reviewed  likewise  by  Adelaide  Montgolfier  in  the  "Revue  en- 
cyclop&Iique,"  1832,  vol.  LIV,  pp.  99-100.  She  says:  "Ses 
observations  dans  sa  tour-ne'e  en  Italic  n'ont  presque,  comme 
c'est  Pusage  des  voyageurs  en  ce  pays,  rapport  qu'aux  arts, 
jug6s  avec  le  gout  en  peinture  d'un  litterateur  et  d'un  Americain, 
c'est-a-dire  d'un  homme  de"pourvu  de  1'instinct,  et  de  cette 
culture  des  sens  ne*cessaires  pour  jouir  re"ellement  des  arts,  et 
quiconque  n'en  jouit  pas  ne  les  peut  juger.  .  .  .  Les  vers  de 
M.  Griffin  sont  ceux  d'un  jeune  homme  qui  a  fait  d'excellentes 
Etudes,  et  qui  puise  ses  inspirations  poe"tiques  dans  les  Emotions 
qu'il  a  dues  a  la  lecture  des  grands  auteurs  classiques  grecs  et 
romains."  One  feels,  in  reading  these  remarks,  that  those 
expressions  and  judgments  that  depend  upon  the  mind,  were 
felt  to  be  more  sure  than  such  as  are  prompted  by  the  emotions. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      61 

The  American  theatre  had  heretofore  received 
but  little  attention,  and  was  to  receive  little  for 
some  time  to  come.  In  1832  William  Dunlap's 
" History  of  the  American  Theatre"  was  pub 
lished  by  Bentley,  in  London,  in  two  volumes; 
possibly  the  place  of  publication  of  the  edition 
that  reached  the  editors  of  the  "  Journal  des  Sa 
vants"  was  the  fact  that  persuaded  them  to  an 
nounce  the  work  the  following  year.8  We  may 
at  least  infer  from  the  brevity  of  the  notice  that 
the  subject  was  not  considered  one  of  living  in 
terest:  "The  introduction  of  plays  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  the  last  century,  suffered 
obstacles  that  were  recurrent  with  the  year 
1811,  when  a  theatre-fire  broke  out  during  a 
performance."  That  is  all  that  the  "Journal 
des  Savants"  found  worth  while  mentioning. 
Certainly  the  particular  domain  of  that  publi 
cation  was  not  precisely  the  modern  theatre  of 
any  country,  much  less  of  America;  therefore 
the  brevity  of  the  notice  has  nothing  in  it  to 
surprise  one.  What,  however,  makes  it  inter 
esting  is  the  evidently  general  lack  of  information 
on  the  subject  among  the  well-read  public  of 
France  that  could  give  such  a  remark,  calcu 
lated  only  to  arouse  a  certain  superficial  curi 
osity,  the  currency  of  a  notice  in  the  "Journal 
des  Savants."  For  the  "Journal  des  Savants," 
America  was  as  yet  no  literary  nation;  for  the 

8  June  number,  1833,  p.  382. 


62      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

"  Revue  encyclop&iique,"  whether  it  was  or  not, 
American  writings  and  intellectual  activity  of 
all  kinds  were  of  the  most  lively  interest. 

Three  years  before  the  above  notice  of  Dun- 
lap's  history,  and  two  before  the  actual  publi 
cation  of  that  work  had  suggested  to  Europe 
that  there  was  an  American  drama,  the  "  Revue 
encyclopeMique "  had  published  a  fairly  lengthy 
consideration  of  the  subject,  by  Madame  Belloc.9 
The  notice  is  unreservedly  unfavorable: 

Aux  Etats-Unis  oft  rien  ne  gene  le  d6veloppe- 
ment  libre  de  la  pens6e,  oil  les  theories  les  plus 
audacieuses,  les  reveries  les  plus  chim^riques, 
peuvent  chercher  et  trouver  auditeurs,  Tart 
dramatique  est  au  moins  aussi  nul  qu'en  Angle- 
terre:  de  pales  reproductions  de  nos  vaudevilles 
de  la  rue  de  Chartres,  des  drames  de  PAmbigu- 
Comique  et  de  la  Gait£,  traduits  litt^ralement, 
charment  les  loisirs  des  habitants  du  Nouveau- 
Monde.  Un  auteur  ambitieux  hasarde  de  loin 
en  loin  une  imitation  froidement  classique  du 
"Caton"  d'Addison,  la  plus  glaciale  des  ceuvres 
classiques.  Mais  de  ces  compositions  chaleu- 
reuses  qui  mettent  en  jeu  une  foule  demotions, 
de  ces  puissants  appels  &  la  sympathie,  de  ces 

9  1830,  vol.  XLVIII,  pp.  693-5.  Heading:  "Richard  Perm 
Smith:  'The  Eighth  of  January',  drame  en  3  actes,  Phila- 
delphie  (Mackensie),  1829."  The  review  is  signed  L.  Sw.  B. 
Reviews  over  this  signature  are  frequently  referred  to  by  the 
editors  in  other  notices  as  by  Madame  Belloc.  Sometimes  the 
first  two  initials  are  given  with  the  entire  last  name.  Adelaide 
Montgolfier  and  others  are  similarly  identified. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      63 

cris  delirants  et  passiones  qui  vous  enlevent  de 
force  a  vous-meme,  il  n'en  est  point.  .  .  . 

Which  suggests  to  the  writer  to  remind  the 
Americans  once  more,  that  until  the  shackles  of 
Europe,  and  above  all  of  Great  Britain,  are 
cast  off  in  matters  literary,  there  will  be  no 
hope  of  an  American  literature.  But  once 
more,  there  is  no  enlightening  suggestion 
thrown  out 

to  guide 

Her  little  children  stumbling  in  the  dark. 

It  is  admitted  that  Americans  had  "  fallen 
into  barbarism77  when  they  wished  to  be  quite 
original;  evidently,  a  literature  of  barbarism 
was  not  to  be  considered  precisely  the  normal 
intellectual  and  emotional  expression  of  the 
United  States.  What,  then,  was  expected? 
Madame  Belloc,  who  has  insisted  more  than 
most  French  critics  upon  this  desideratum  of 
originality  in  American  letters,  does  not  explain 
herself  clearly  upon  this  point. 

But  the  question  of  the  American  theatre  is  a 
special  question,  certainly,  for  it  would  appear 
that  there  are  reasons  which  hindered  the 
development  of  that  particular  form  as  a  national 
expression.  Indeed,  its  relative  obscurity  in  the 
earlier  period  of  our  history  would  seem  to  be, 
if  negatively,  a  national  expression.  The  United 
States  of  1830  —  and  the  same  is  of  course  true 


64      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

of  a  far  more  recent  period  as  well  —  were  too 
permeated  with  the  puritan  idea  to  give  much 
play  to  dramatic  art.  The  restriction  was  per 
haps  largely  incidental  to  the  religious  tradition, 
but  it  is  none  the  less  true  that  the  theatre  was 
not  here,  as  in  France,  the  natural  field  that  a 
serious  mind  would  choose  for  the  expression  of 
the  best  that  was  in  him.  We  must  admit  that 
the  drama  as  a  whole  occupied  a  place  in  public 
consideration  somewhat  analagous  to  that  of 
comic  opera  to-day;  by  no  means  unrespect- 
able,  but  essentially  for  amusement.  Later,  we 
shall  find  this  fact  realized  in  France.  In  1830 
it  was  not  emphasized  at  its  just  value,  if 
expressed. 

An  article  on  Irving  —  not  a  review  merely 
this  time,  although  "The  Alhambra"  is  the 
occasion  of  it  —  in  the  "Revue  des  deux 
Mondes"  in  1832 10  restates  very  much  the 
same  ideas  upon  American  literature  as  a  whole 
that  we  have  seen  —  but  with  perhaps  greater 
frankness  in  respect  to  what  the  French  sought 
there.  The  writer  repeats  the  opinion  that 
American  literature  is  known  only  through 
Cooper  and  Irving.  Certain  other  names  are 
known,  it  is  true;  among  them  those  of  Miss 
Sedgwick  and  of  Paulding;  but  Miss  Sedg- 
wick  is  of  no  importance,  Paulding  of  but  little; 

10  A.  Fontaney:  "La  Literature  ame*ricaine:  Washington 
Irving  — 'The  Alhambra/"  vol.  VI,  pp.  515  sqq. 


X 
FRENCH   CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      65 

and  as  for  the  others  less  known,  whatever 
currency  their  names  may  have,  it  is  entirely  at 
second  hand,  for  they  are  known  only  to  the 
"  industrious  readers  of  the  Revues  etrangeres." 
And  as  for  Cooper  and  Irving,  they  owe  their 
reputation  much  less  to  the  originality  of  the 
form  in  their  works  than  to  the  "nouveaute" 
of  the  customs  they  at  first  depicted: 

Leurs  livres  nous  plaisaient,  surtout  parce 
que  nous  y  trouvions  ce  que  nous  cherchions  si 
laborieusement,  et  ce  que  nous  rencontrons  si 
peu  sur  notre  sol  use:  —  a-savoir,  quelque  coin 
inexplore  de  Tart:  quelque  chose  de  neuf  et 
d'inedit. 

No  doubt  this  is  all  true,  so  far  as  it  goes,  but 
perhaps  it  is  well  to  note  here  that  there  is  a 
discrepancy  in  the  statement.  Supposing  true 
what  is  said  in  the  statement  transcribed,  how 
are  we  to  explain  that  other  opinion,  that 
Paulding,  for  example,  does  not  count?  For 
Paulding,  too,  sought  his  characters  and  his 
scenes  in  the  American  territory;  moreover, 
there  is  a  certain  human  truth  about  the  char 
acters  in  "The  Dutchman's  Fireside/'  to  choose 
the  most  popular  of  his  novels,  that  one  may 
almost  state  to  be  lacking  in  the  idealized  beings 
of  Cooper's  novels,  and  that  was  certainly  a 
secondary  consideration  with  Irving,  so  far  as 
his  American  sketches  are  concerned:  there  are 
real  people  in  "Bracebridge  Hall";  "Knicker- 


66      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

bocker's  History "  is  a  portfolio  of  caricatures. 
One  could  not  carry  this  thesis  very  far,  it  is 
true,  in  connection  with  Irving,  but  it  is  at 
least  true  that  there  is  a  contrast  between  his 
intention  and  Paulding's  that  should  entitle 
the  latter  to  consideration  as  a  sincere  writer 
upon,  or  about,  his  native  country.  Why,  then, 
is  it  stated  that  Paulding  " hardly  counts"? 
Evidently,  not  for  the  reason  adduced:  that 
Europeans,  searching  for  "nouveaut6,"  could 
not  have  recognized  it  in  Paulding,  as  well  as  in 
many  others.  .  .  .  Paulding  certainly  lacks  the 
sure  and  delicate  touch  that  distinguishes  Irv 
ing  —  that  is  always  the  criterion  of  a  literary 
work.  To  suppose  that  a  French  public  would 
not  instinctively  feel  that  difference  between 
Irving  and  Paulding,  would  probably  be  sup 
posing  too  much.  However  much  Frenchmen 
may  have  desired  to  see  American  works  freed, 
to  a  degree,  of  European  literary  traditions,  we 
have  no  evidence,  as  was  remarked  before,  that 
they  sought  here,  any  more  than  anywhere  else, 
for  clumsily  constructed  work  as  being  some 
thing  to  be  desired.  This  would  seem  to  explain 
the  apparent  discrepancy  in  the  article  here 
being  studied. 

But  in  1832  Cooper's  "Bravo"  had  been  out 
a  year;  his  " Heidenmauer "  (which  is  not  men 
tioned,  however,  in  M.  Fontaney's  article)  was 
being  published.  Irving's  "  Conquest  of  Gran- 


FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      67 

ada"  appeared  in  1829,  and  in  1832  "The 
Alhambra." 

Voici  cependant  [says  our  writer]  qu'aujour- 
d'hui,  comme  s'ils  avaient  completement  exploite 
les  mines  fecondes  de  leur  jeune  continent,  ils 
viennent  nous  disputer  les  filons  epuises  de 
celles  de  not  re  vieille  Europe. 

And  therefore  —  loss  of  interest.  Loss  in 
interest  for  Europeans,  to  whom  Europe  was 
familiar,  to  whom  America  was  a  matter  to 
awaken  curiosity,  —  that  was  an  inevitable  result. 
But  for  the  Americans,  for  whom,  after  all, 
Cooper  and  Irving  were  writing,  and  from  whom 
they  must  expect  the  deciding  voice  in  regard 
to  their  work,  —  for  Americans,  probably,  the 
interest  in  their  books  would  not  be  lessened  by 
reason  of  the  change  of  scene.  Fontaney  finds 
Cooper's  "Bravo"  less  original  than  his  Ameri 
can  novels;  the  fact  is,  that  it  never  has  had 
any  popularity.  But  of  Irving  the  same  is 
hardly  true;  as  for  the  type  of  composition  of 
the  "Alhambra,"  as  for  that  of  the  "Conquest 
of  Granada,"  neither  of  which  can  expect  the 
popularity  of  a  comic  history  or  of  a  work  of 
pure  fiction,  those  books  have  surely  been  among 
the  greatest  successes  in  American  publication; 
indeed,  they  almost  constitute  an  exception  to 
the  general  rule.  The  reason  has  been,  that  to 
Americans  they  have  been  of  the  greatest  inter 
est;  and  they  have  stood  the  test  of  time  very 


68      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

well,  which  goes  a  long  way  to  prove  their  real 
literary  worth,  the  question  of  originality 
included. 

.  .  .  Jamais  Washington  Irving  n'a  fait  un 
aussi  heureux  emploi  de  son  talent  et  de  son 
habilet6  que  dans  ses  esquisses  de  mceurs  am£ri- 
caines.  Son  histoire  satirique  de  New- York  est 
encore,  sans  contredit,  le  plus  spirituel,  et  le  plus 
piquant  de  ses  ouvrages.  .  .  .  "  La  Conquete  de 
Grenade "  et  surtout  la  "Vie  et  .  .  .  Voyages 
de  Christophe  Colomb,"  sont  des  ouvrages  fort 
estimables,  et  qui  ne  seraient  point  passes 
inapergus,  fussent-ils  sortis  de  la  plume  d'un 
auteur  moins  connu.  Les  deux  derniers  6taient 
meme  tout-a-fait  de  son  ressort,  et  se  ratta- 
chaient  particulierement  a  Thistoire  de  son  Ame*- 
rique:  aussi  nous  semblent-ils  fort  superieurs  & 
"La  Conquete  de  Grenade. " 

So  we  have,  once  more,  an  expression  that  is 
only  that  of  a  personal  opinion,  untempered  by 
sincere  effort  to  understand  the  facts  as  they 
were;  in  short,  hardly  criticism,  as  we  now 
understand  the  word. 

In  the  same  year  with  the  article  just  cited, 
appeared  another  in  the  "Revue  de  Paris, " 
based  upon  the  "Alhambra"  and  Cooper's 
"Heidenmauer."11  Here  the  reviewer  is  naif 
in  his  resentment  at  the  choice  of  scene: 

11  "Revue  de  Paris,"  vol.  XL  (1832),  p.  263.  The  article  - 
or  rather  notice  —  is  with  reference  to  French  translations  of 
these  works:  "Contcs  de  1'Alhambra,"  Paris,  Fournier,  2  vols., 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      69 

Les  deux  auteurs  les  plus  en  vogue  des  Etats- 
Unis  semblent  d'accord  pour  oublier  leur  pays 
dans  leurs  compositions  recentes,  et  il  y  a  de 
leur  part  une  veritable  ingratitude  d'ecrivains, 
en  meme  temps  qu'un  faux  calcul,  lorsqu'ils 
empruntent  leurs  sujets  a  la  vieille  Europe. 

Three  years  later  there  will  be  less  resent 
ment  on  account  of  the  "Monikins."12 

Le  nouvel  ouvrage  de  Fenimore  Cooper,  "Les 
Monikins,"  traduit  par  M.  Benjamin  Laroche, 
vient  de  paraitre  a  la  librairie  Charpentier. 
L'auteur  des  "  Mohicans/ '  de  F  "Espion,"  a 
ouvert,  dans  cette  production,  une  voie  toute 
nouvelle  a  son  talent.  "Les  Monikins"  sont  a 
la  fois  un  roman  amusant  et  une  satire  philoso- 
phique  de  la  societe  actuelle.  Cooper,  dans  ce 
livre,  jette  le  ridicule  non-seulement  sur 
FAngleterre,  mais  encore  sur  son  propre 
pays.  .  .  . 

Not  all  critics  have  found  the  satiric  vein  of 
Cooper  as  "philosophic77  as  did  this  writer. 

The  "Journal  des  Savants "  notes,  in  1832,  a 
recently  published  work  of  a  general  nature 
upon  America,  that  the  reviewer  characterizes, 
with  the  brevity  usual  in  that  periodical  in 
speaking  of  what  regarded  the  United  States, 
simply  as  containing  "many  notions  that  had 
not  been  found  as  yet  (que  nous  n'avions  pas 

and  "  L' Heidenmauer,  ou  le  Camp  des  Paiens,"  Paris,  Ch. 
Gosselin,  4  vols.  An  English  text  of  the  "Heidenmauer/' 
published  by  Baudry,  is  also  noted. 

12  "Revue  de  Paris,"  vol.  XXI  (1835),  p.  136. 


70      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

encore  rencontre*es)  in  books  published  or  cur 
rent  in  France."13 

As  might  be  supposed  from  the  circumstances 
of  his  life,  the  interests  of  Achille  Murat  were 
above  all  political;  incidentally,  he  was  a  man 
of  business.14  The  questions  discussed  by  him 
are  principally  such  as  relate  to  the  working  of 
the  American  government.  The  last  of  the  ten 
letters,  however,  that  compose  the  book,  pur 
ports  to  deal  with  manners,  fine  arts,  and  litera 
ture.  Really,  it  is  nothing  but  an  account  of 
American  aristocratic  society,  as  he  had  found 
it  in  the  decade  of  his  residence  in  the  United 
States:  the  status  of  women  —  particularly  of 
society  women,  American  hospitality,  the  char 
acteristics  of  North  and  South,  the  bustle 
and  extravagance  of  New  York,  the  society  of 
Philadelphia  —  "much  more  enlightened  than 
that  of  New  York,"  he  says,  that  of  Rich- 

13  "Journal  des  Savants,"  March,  1832,  pp.  186-7:  Achille 
Murat,  citoyen  des  fitats-Unis,  colonel  honoraire  dans  I'arm4e 
beige,    ci-devant    prince    royal    des    Deux-Siciles  —  "Esquisse 
morale  et  politique  des  fitats-Unis  de  I'Amerique  du  nord"; 
Paris,  imprimerie  Vve  Thuau,  librairie  Crochard,  1832.  .  .  . 

There  was  an  English  translation,  entitled  "The  United 
States  of  North  America."  The  2d  edition  of  it  appeared  in 
1833  in  London  (publisher:  Effingham  Wilson).  This  transla 
tion  was  used  in  writing  of  Murat. 

14  There  is  a  discussion  of  this  personage  in  the  "Revue 
historique,"  vol.  XCIV,  pp.  71-90,  written  by  Georges  Weill 
and  entitled,  "Les  Lettres  d'Achille  Murat."     There  are  to  be 
found  a  number  of  biographical  details. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      71 

mond,  and  above  all,  of  Charleston,  where  he 
found  Americans  at  their  best;  New  Orleans, 
Saratoga,  and  the  centre  of  all,  Washington.  .  .  . 
All  this,  treated  in  thirty  pages,  will  leave  the 
writer  but  little  opportunity  for  a  serious  dis 
cussion  of  the  fine  arts  and  literature,  one  would 
presume.  He  attempts  none.  He  names  no 
representative  of  either;  he  can  hardly  be  said 
to  have  either  a  favorable  or  an  unfavorable 
opinion  about  them,  as  they  exist  in  the  United 
States.  Certainly,  he  supposed  both  to  be,  rela 
tively  to  their  status  in  Europe,  of  minor  im 
portance. 

He  is  not  partisan,  neither  is  he  particularly 
interested  in  the  phase  of  the  subject  he  is 
treating.  Yet  he  has  the  advantage  that  goes 
with  those  somewhat  negative  qualities:  he  can 
be  really  critical.  Moreover,  his  residence  in 
America  had  given  him  a  first-hand  knowledge 
of  many  details.  He  is  able  correctly  to  estimate 
certain  facts  which  we  already  have  very  fre 
quently  seen  misinterpreted. 

"  Everybody  is  literary  in  the  United  States/' 
he  says,  "for  everybody  has  received  a  good 
education."  " Literature,  at  the  present  mo 
ment,  is  almost  entirely  oral,  oratory  being  that 
branch  of  it  which  is  the  most  advanced."  "I 
am  aware  that  we  number  among  us  authors 
distinguished  in  those  kinds  of  literature  which 
require  lightness  of  style,  and  grace  and  fresh- 


72      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

ness  in  the  coloring;  but  these  are  exceptions 
to  the  general  rule;  these  are  the  isolated  fore 
runners  of  a  generation  of  literary  men  yet  to 


come." 


Which  was,  of  course,  probably  relatively 
true  —  only  we  must  accept  his  definition  of 
"literary"  as  meaning  simply  " literate";  that 
Americans  were  generally  capable  of  adequate 
self-expression  in  their  political  and  social  life. 
He  goes  on  to  explain  the  condition;  —  and  it  is 
in  this  explanation,  such  as  it  is,  that  the  worth 
of  his  criticism  lies.  And  he  approaches  the 
question  through  the  fine  arts  and  the  theatre, 
which  he  seems  to  conceive  as  the  most  typical 
expressions,  along  with  music,  of  "art  for  art's 
sake,"  to  use  an  expression  not  employed  by 
Murat.  There  seem  to  be  two  causes,  to  his 
mind,  for  the  tardy  development  of  those  inter 
ests  in  the  United  States.  The  first  is  the  fact 
that  here,  owing  to  the  necessity  of  self-support 
on  the  part  of  almost  everybody,  few  have  the 
leisure  necessary  for  such  production.  He  states 
explicitly  that  in  his  opinion  there  is  no  lack 
of  genius  or  of  taste  in  the  United  States  - 
only  men  are  forced,  out  of  self-protection,  into 
those  pursuits  that  are  the  most  remunerative: 
"  ...  as  long  as  the  work  of  the  poet  or  the 
painter  is  less  remunerated,  he  says,  than  that 
of  the  lawyer  or  the  preacher,  people  will  speak, 
and  not  write."  And  his  observation  about  the 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      73 

fine  arts,  although  he  does  not  state  it  precisely 
in  support  of  this  theory,  nevertheless  confirms 
it  to  a  certain  extent.  Of  these  arts,  architecture 
is  that  most  perfected  here:  he  speaks  of  the 
public  buildings,  churches,  town  mansions,  as 
being  appropriate  to  their  uses,  and  designed 
with  elegance  and  solidly  built.  Of  those  less 
commercial  arts,  painting  and  sculpture  —  apart 
from  architecture  —  he  does  not  speak  as 
having  arrived  at  any  degree  of  perfection. 

This  fact  of  the  direction  of  the  talents  into 
the  best  remunerated  line  of  effort,  is,  however, 
not  a  fundamental  fact :  it  is  but  the  manifesta 
tion  of  a  sentiment  that  must  have  created  the 
scale  of  remuneration.  Murat  does  not  say 
this  in  so  many  words,  but  it  is  evident  that  it 
was  his  feeling  in  the  matter,  for  he  goes  on  to 
develop  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  prime  reason 
of  all  this.  His  manner  is  unusual: 

Take  Phidias  or  Apelles,  he  says,  drop  them 
into  one  of  our  towns  in  the  midst  of  a  public 
ceremony,  the  4th  of  July,  for  instance,  the 
anniversary  of  the  declaration  of  independence, 
one  of  the  most  courageous  and  most  rational 
acts  that  a  nation  has  ever  performed.  First 
of  all  they  will  hear  the  cannon  roaring  on  all 
sides,  the  ships  will  have  all  their  flags  hoisted, 
all  the  militia  will  be  under  arms,  the  different 
societies,  the  different  professions  and  trades, 
will  form  themselves  into  a  body  to  join  the 
procession  formed  by  the  magistrates  and  the 


74      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

militia.  It  will  repair  to  some  church,  where  a 
very  grave  man,  dressed  in  a  black  gown,  with 
melancholy  air,  bilious  complexion,  and  length 
ened  figure,  will  announce  to  them,  in  a  doleful 
tone,  that  although  their  ancestors  may  have 
signed  that  immortal  declaration,  they  are  not 
the  less  damned  if  they  have  continued  to  swear 
or  to  dance  on  Sundays;  and  that  it  is  not  merely 
being  free,  but  that  it  is  necessary  also  to  be 
Christians  and  elected  in  order  to  be  saved.  .  .  . 
Do  you  sincerely  think  that,  if  our  Greek 
artists  had  never  seen  popular  rejoicings  in  any 
other  way,  they  could  ever  have  produced  their 
great  works?  It  was  with  the  soul  still  full  of  the 
games  of  the  Palaestra  ...  it  was  ...  on 
quitting  the  arms  of  Lais,  of  Phryne,  and  Aspa- 
sia;  and  it  was  by  following  their  advice,  and 
even  that  of  Alcibiades,  that  the  marble  became 
animated,  that  the  canvas  spoke.  As  long  as 
we  have  different  manners,  it  is  impossible  to 
rival  the  productions  of  the  Greeks. 

It  would  not  do  to  quibble  about  the  exact 
ness  of  Murat's  contrast;  he  certainly  had  no 
intention  of  making  a  carefully  reasoned  study 
of  American  characteristics.  What  is  certain 
is,  that  if  French  readers  got  from  this  vivid 
generalization  some  conception  of  the  puritan 
ideal  of  seriousness  and  of  restraint  that,  as 
compared  with  French  customs  at  any  rate, 
governed  American  society,  then  they  got  a 
more  true  and  serviceable  criterion  for  a  judg 
ment  of  the  United  States  of  that  day  than  they 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      75 

appear  hitherto  in  possession  of.  The  exaggera 
tion  of  the  American  commercial  spirit  had  been 
too  much  emphasized  as  a  contrast  to  the  po 
tency  of  nature  and  of  the  democratic  ideal  over 
the  thoughts  of  men.  Here  at  last  appears  a 
little  —  indeed,  much  indispensable  —  informa 
tion  about  conditions  as  they  were,  and,  inci 
dentally,  perhaps  the  most  genuine,  if  the 
most  unostentatious,  criticism  of  our  literature. 
One  can  only  regret  that  Murat  gave  no  more 
attention  than  he  did  to  a  detailed  study  of  the 
literature  of  his  adopted  country;  he  could  not 
have  failed  to  make  for  a  more  thorough  under 
standing  and  sympathy  between  the  French 
and  the  Americans.  The  bilious  carping  of 
Fenimore  Cooper,  the  uninformed  criticism  that 
had  been  seen  thus  far  in  France,  are  in  dis 
tressing  contrast  to  the  sincerity  of  this  cosmo 
politan  prince-democrat. 

It  was  natural  that  the  somewhat  scornful 
tone  of  a  great  deal  of  the  French  criticism 
should  arouse  some  feeling  in  any  American 
who  was  able  to  follow  it  in  the  years  that  have 
just  been  studied.  Unfortunately,  the  only 
answer  to  such  remarks  is  to  produce  works 
of  such  unquestionable  merit  that  the  spirit  of 
stricture  will  find  no  further  place.  And  it  is 
generally  true  that  the  journalistic  instinct  that 
prompts  such  criticisms  and  their  answers  is 
not  present  in  the  minds  that  will  produce  the 


76      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

masterpieces  of  original  genius.  Philarete 
Chasles,  who  is  soon  to  be  noticed,  certainly 
justified  the  American  literature,  but  he  did 
not  have  its  defence  in  mind  when  he  began  to 
write  upon  the  subject;  he  was  intent  only 
upon  finding  out  the  truth  in  regard  to  it. 
Cooper,  when  he  enters  into  this  stupid  quarrel 
of  nations  who  had  no  quarrel,  who  simply 
were  not  acquainted,  only  adds  fuel  to  the 
flames.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  writer  who 
is  about  to  be  mentioned  had  any  particular 
effect  one  way  or  the  other;  for  his  exposition 
of  American  literature  is  not  competent,  or 
else  it  is  too  prepossessed;  on  the  other  hand, 
he  had  the  negative  quality  of  not  wishing 
to  create  ill  feeling.15  His  is  only  the  natural 
sentiment  that  an  American  familiar  with 
French  would  experience,  provided  he  were  not 
rather  more  reasonable  than  most  people,  upon 
reading  the  inadequate  and  somewhat  patroniz 
ing  notices  that  were  usual  in  the  French 
periodicals.  Vail's  "Reponse,"  which  is  only  a 
thin  pamphlet,  is  almost  entirely  concerned  with 
other  questions  than  literary  ones,  just  as  might 
be  expected  considering  the  relative  scarceness 
of  any  opinion  whatsoever  in  France  upon  the 
United  States  as  a  literary  nation. 

15  I  refer  to  the  "  Re"ponse  a  quelques  imputations  centre  lea 
Etats-Unis,  e"noncees  dans  des  Merits  et  journaux  re*cens,"  par 
Eugene  A.  Vail,  citoyen  des  Etats-Unis  .  .  .  Paris,  1837. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      77 

.  .  .  n'y  aurait-il  pas  mauvaise  grace  a  re 
fuser  tout  essor  de  1' imagination  .  .  .  quand 
dans  toutes  les  bibliotheques,  dans  tous  les 
boudoirs,  on  recontre  des  noms  comme  ceux 
des  Paulding,  des  Cooper,  et  des  Irving? 

And  he  says  little  more  in  the  couple  of  pages 
that  he  devotes  to  that  side  of  the  question. 

Several  years  after,  when  Philarete  Chasles 
had  written  his  important  article  on  American 
literature  in  the  "  Revue  des  deux  Mondes,"  in 
1835  —  this  article  had  already  appeared,  by 
the  way,  before  VaiPs  pamphlet  —  and  the 
year  following  the  second  part  of  Tocqueville's 
"Democratic  en  Amerique,"  of  1840,  Vail 
published  a  second  work,  a  book  this  time, 
devoted  entirely  to  the  study  —  or  it  would 
be  more  exact  to  say,  to  the  justification  —  of 
American  literature  in  the  eyes  of  French 
readers.16 

It  is  very  unfortunate  indeed  that  so  much 
effort  should  have  been  given,  where  so  little 
critical  ability  was  present  to  make  it  of  per 
manent  worth.  Not  that  it  had  none:  its  pages 
are  crammed  with  names  of  American  writers 
in  every  possible  division  of  literature.  As  a 
catalogue  for  a  prospective  student,  Vail's  book 
would  have  merit.  But  as  criticism  it  is  negli- 

16  "De  la  litte>ature,  et  des  Hommes  de  lettres  aux  fitats- 
Unis  d'Ame*rique"  par  Eugene  A.  Vail,  Citoyen  des  fitats-Unis. 
Paris,  Ch.  Gosselin,  1841. 


78      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

gible.  He  gives  a  general  classification  of  re 
cently  published  books  —  the  classification  of  the 
publications  of  a  year  (pp.  xiv-xvi),  in  support 
of  a  remark  that  the  American  taste  in  litera 
ture  is  toward  utility,  and  toward  the  serious  - 
thus  confirming  the  general  impression  in  France. 
But  where  statistics  fail  him,  as  practically 
everywhere  in  his  volume,  his  remarks  are  on  a 
par,  for  critical  acumen,  with  the  worst  of  those 
that  have  come  to  our  notice  in  the  French  peri 
odicals,  —  a  constant  repetition  of  the  theme 
that  Americans  have  been  too  much  neglected 
from  the  literary  standpoint,  and  that  all  their 
productions  have  a  certain  merit,  always  a 
justification.  There  is  no  variety  in  his  esti 
mates,  except  the  inevitable  one  of  a  relative 
degree  of  excellence  when  mentioning  one  Ameri 
can  writer  in  connection  with  another.  An 
analysis  of  his  book  would  be  profitless  here,  on 
that  account  as  well  as  because,  as  was  men 
tioned,  it  had  no  great  influence  in  any  way. 
The  fact  of  his  American  nationality  —  he  was 
the  son  of  an  American  consul  and  born  in 
Lorient  —  would  perhaps  not  have  been  a  suffi 
cient  reason  for  not  giving  him  more  space,  since 
his  book  was  written  in  French  and  published 
in  Paris. 

That  year17  an  article,  signed  P.  Dillon,  based 

17  "Revue  des  deux  Mondes,"  4es4r.,  vol.  XXVII,  pp.  953- 
68  (1841). 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      79 

upon  VaiFs  book,  appeared  in  the  "  Revue  des 
deux  Mondes."  It  was  hardly  to  be  expected 
that  the  periodical  that  had  published,  and  was 
to  continue  for  a  number  of  years  to  publish, 
the  articles  of  Philarete  Chasles,  would  find 
the  ideas  of  Mr.  Vail  in  themselves  extremely 
enlightening.  But  the  subject  was  becoming 
one  of  great  interest,  and  any  consideration  of  it 
at  such  a  length  was  bound  to  get  notice  and 
criticism.  The  article  in  question,  it  is  needless 
to  say,  corrects  the  overenthusiastic  remarks  of 
Vail,  but  would  seem  to  most  to-day,  no  doubt, 
somewhat  too  sweeping  in  a  division  that  is 
made  of  American  literature.  The  reader  can 
judge. 

Vail  had  emphasized  the  utilitarian  and  the 
serious  sides  of  American  literature :  his  analysis 
of  recent  publications  with  regard  to  a  classi 
fication  under  different  heads  showed  a  great 
preponderance  of  manuals  of  religious  and 
philosophic  books  over  those  of  poetry  and 
drama.  Dillon  goes  a  little  further: 

Le  travail,  rien  que  le  travail,  voila  en  quoi 
se  resume  toute  existence  americaine.  On  ne 
saurait  s'attendre  a  trouver  au  sein  d'une 
societe  ainsi  organisee  une  litterature  riche  en 
poetes,  en  dramaturges,  en  romanciers. 

We  shall  find  that,  among  other  causes, 
democracy  and  puritanical  protestantism  have 


80      FREN.CH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

been  adduced  as  reasons  why  the  theatre  and 
poetry  had  not  flourished  in  the  United  States. 
The  unavoidable  fact  of  the  existence  of  a 
creditable  production  in  the  way  of  sketches 
and  novels  had  made  the  exclusion  of  the  divi 
sion  of  prose  fiction  rather  impossible  to  most 
critics;  in  this  Dillon  is  original  —  if  we  should 
not  say  inexact  —  in  his  views. 

Probably  he  was  forced  to  a  certain  degree 
into  his  extreme  view,  out  of  a  desire  to  correct 
the  eulogistic  tone  of  VaiPs  book. 

.  .  .  l'6tranger  n'est  pas  mediocrement  sur- 
pris  de  voir  des  esprits  graves  mettre  les  noms, 
fort  estimables  sans  doute,  d'un  'Joel  Barlow 
ou  d'un  Bryant  a  cot6  de  ceux  de  Corneille 
et  de  Racine,  sans  se  douter  de  P6normit6  du 
sacrilege. 

We  are  hardly  less  surprised  at  the  sacrilege, 
as  he  calls  lack  of  judgment  or  ignorance,  of 
setting  the  name  of  Joel  Barlow  beside  that  of 
Bryant.' .  .  .  Dillon  is  not  at  his  best  in  those 
moments  when  he  traffics  in  the  cheap  commodity 
of  great  names.  There  is  more  interesting  matter 
in  his  article. 

He  makes  a  new  division  of  American  litera 
ture  into  two  epochs:  that  before  the  year  1800, 
approximately,  and  the  following  years.  But 
he  does  not  make  this  arbitrary  division  in 
date. 


FRENCH    CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE      81 

Dans  la  premiere,  nous  rencontrons  une  eleva 
tion  veritable,  tous  les  indices  d'un  vrai  talent. 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Franklin,  Jay,  tous  les 
signataires  de  la  declaration  d'independance, 
esprits  nobles  et  eclaires,  appartiennent  a  cette 
premiere  epoque.  Lisez  leurs  ouvrages  im- 
mortels,  et  comparez-les  a  ceux  de  la  generation 
actuelle.  Quelle  difference. 

In  the  next  chapter  it  may  appear  that  Dillon 
has  enlarged  in  this  classification  upon  an  obser 
vation  of  Tocqueville.  Dillon  finds  that  in  the 
second  epoch  the  spirit  of  the  literature  has,  as 
it  were,  suddenly  weakened  and  faded;  "on 
dirait  que  les  intelligences  s'y  sont  soudaine- 
ment  affaissees."  And  the  cause?  Literary 
expression  is  no  longer  founded,  as  in  the  days 
of  the  Signers,  to  a  great  degree  upon  the 
"political  and  literary  traditions  of  monarchical 
Europe"  that  helped  to  produce  these  "great 
writers  and  bold  thinkers";  to-day,  not  an 
aristocracy  of  intelligence,  but  the  uncultured 
mass,  will  judge  of  an  American  work,  and  it  is 
to  the  mass  that  the  writer  must  pledge  his  pro 
duction.  We  could  have  wished  that  Dillon 
had  gone  into  the  question  of  Bryant,  of  Emer 
son,  of  Longfellow  —  although  in  the  two  latter 
cases  he  need  not,  since  their  production  was 
to  come  later  in  many  of  the  parts  of  it  that 
seem  to  us  the  most  important,  and  since  he 
had  particularly  mentioned  Bryant  as  represent- 


82      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

ing  rather  the  weak  side  of  American  literature 
we  may  wish  that  he  had  tried  to  demonstrate 
a  little  more  fully  the  truth  of  the  theory 
he  advances;  would  he  have  found  that  these 
three  writers  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  address 
their  thoughts  to  pleasing  the  larger  public? 
One  may  admit  that  Longfellow  is  in  the  most 
of  his  productions  attractive  to  the  greater 
number  —  or  was  in  his  day  —  but,  whether  he 
wished  to  be  or  not,  can  as  much  be  said  of 
Bryant  and  of  Emerson?  There  is  perhaps  as 
much  to  be  said  against  as  for  such  a  thesis. 
Other  aspects  of  American  literature,  such  as 
its  journalistic  manifestations,  might  have  been 
adduced;  but  the  proof  of  one  point  of  view 
does  not  demonstrate  truth. 

And  so  it  is  with  the  rest  of  Dillon,  as  with 
Vail.  The  merit  of  Dillon's  article  was,  of 
course,  to  correct  VaiFs  statements,  but  neither 
is  thoroughly  critical ;--  Vail  not  at  all  so.  The 
article  in  the  "  Revue  des  deux  Mondes"  had 
another  merit,  although  it  would  not  appear 
from  the  extracts  that  have  been  given  as  hav 
ing  a  special  interest  for  their  content.  This 
merit  is  the  tone  of  the  article,  which  is  reserved 
in  spite  of  its  strictures,  and  rather  kindly  and 
appreciative  in  tone  than  carping;  it  must  have 
helped,  after  all,  to  make  for  an  interest,  and  a 
fairly  suitable  initial  outlook  on  the  subject  for 
French  readers.  And  the  fact  of  the  publica- 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      83 

tion  of  so  large  a  book  as  Vail's,  and  its  criticism 
in  the  "  Revue  des  deux  Mondes"  shows  a  con 
siderable  interest  in  the  subject. 

There  remain  to  be  noticed  in  this  connection, 
not  for  any  other  reason  than  to  show  that  with 
the  publication  of  Tocqueville's  work  from  1835 
to  1840  there  was  a  considerable  body  of  French 
studies  upon  one  aspect  or  the  other  of  the 
United  States,  two  works,  which,  however,  do 
not  deal  at  all  with  the  particular  matter  in 
hand.  The  first  is  M.  Chevalier's  "Lettres 
sur  1'Amerique  du  Nord,"  published  in  two 
volumes  at  Brussels,  in  1837;  it  deals  with  the 
industrial  and  commercial  aspect  of  the  nation. 
The  second  is  Guizot's  French  translation  of 
Jared  Sparks'  collection  of  "The  Writings  of 
George  Washington"18  which  appeared  in  six 
volumes  in  Paris.  Guizot's  translation  is  a  selec 
tion  from  Sparks'  collection,  and  is  preceded  by 
an  "  Introduction  sur  1'influence  et  le  caractere 
de  Washington  dans  la  revolution  des  Etats-Unis 
d'Amerique."  In  this  introductory  essay  Guizot 
confined  himself  strictly  to  the  political  side  of 
Washington's  career,  and  one  searches  in  vain  for 
any  idea  that  could  be  applied  to  the  American 
literature  as  such.  The  appreciation  of  Wash 
ington  is,  however,  of  so  elevated  a  nature,  that 
one  feels  in  reading  it  that  if,  as  was  probable, 
Dillon  was  acquainted  with  it  when  he  wrote 

18  Gosselin,  1839-1840. 


84      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

his  appreciation  of  Vail  in  the  "  Revue  des  deux 
Mondes,"  we  may  have  the  genesis  of  his  idea 
of  the  division  of  American  literature  into  the 
exalted  period  of  the  Signers,  and  the  charac 
terless  one  that  followed. 


IV 

ALEXIS  DE  TOCQUEVILLE 

OUR  concern  with  Alexis  de  Tocqueville 
begins  with  the  year  1840,  when  the  second 
part  of  his  work  "De  la  Democratic  en  Ameri- 
que"  was  published.1  This  second  part  is  sub 
divided  into  four  sections,  entitled,  respectively, 
"  Influence  de  la  democratic  sur  le  mouvement 
intellectuel  aux  Etats-Unis,"  "  Influence  de  la 
democratie  sur  les  sentiments  des  Amerieains," 
"  Influence  de  la  democratie  sur  les  mceurs  prop- 
rement  dites,"  and  "De  Tinfluence  qu'exercent 
les  idees  et  les  sentiments  democratiques  sur 
la  societe  politique."  It  is  principally  with  the 
first  two  sections  that  the  present  study  will 
have  to  deal. 

The  very  general  interest  felt  for  the  first 
part  of  the  work  is  well  known,  and  is  attested 

1  The  first  part,  dealing  with  the  political  institutions,  had 
come  out  in  1835.  The  edition  of  this  work  used,  and  referred 
to  here,  is  that  contained  in  the  "GEuvres  completes  d' Alexis 
de  Tocqueville  publie"es  par  Madame  de  Tocqueville/7  17e 
Edition,  Paris,  Calmann  LeVy.  The  "Democratic  en  Ame"rique" 
comprises  the  first  three  volumes  of  this  edition,  and  is  dated 
1888.  The  first  two  volumes  contain  the  first  part  of  the  work 
as  originally  published  in  1835  —  that  part  dealing  with  the 
political  institutions;  the  third  volume  contains  the  second 
part,  published  in  1840. 

85 


86      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

by  the  many  articles  based  upon  it  appearing 
in  the  French  and  English  reviews.  The 
phrase  " articles  based  upon  it"  is  used  ad 
visedly;  for  the  distinguishing  characteristic 
of  this  work  is  its  suggestiveness.  One  feels 
that  on  this  account  it  is  in  a  sense  above  criti 
cism.  Certainly  it  is  not  a  work  that  can  be 
resumed;  on  the  contrary,  any  exhaustive 
study  of  it  would  be  bound  to  exceed  the  origi 
nal  in  length,  so  condensed  is  it.  There  have 
been  numerous  considerations  of  this  aspect  or 
of  the  other,  but  the  commentary  has  not  been 
written.  And  it  seems  unfortunate  that  this  is 
so,  for  it  is  one  of  those  works  that  require 
constant  elucidation;  and  whatever  conclusion 
might  be  arrived  at  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
opinions  set  forth,  the  whole  is  too  suggestive 
to  be  profitless. 

Of  the  second  part,  Madame  de  Tocqueville 
has  this  to  say  in  her  introduction : 2 

Cette  seconde  partie  de  "la  Democratic  en 
Am£rique"  a  eu,  il  faut  le  reconnaitre,  un 
moindre  succ&s  que  la  premiere.  Elle  n'a  pas 
sans  doute  £t6  moins  achet^e,  mais  je  crois 
qu'elle  a  e*t6  moins  lue.  Beaucoup  moins  de 
feuilles  p6riodiques  en  ont  rendu  compte.  Elle 
renferme  une  si  grande  quantite*  d'id6es  con- 
dens6es  dans  un  £troit  espace  et  toutes  rigoureu- 
sement  enchain^es  les  unes  aux  autres,  que  plus 

2  "(Euvres  completes  d' Alexis  dc  Tocqueville".  .  .  vol.  I, 
pp.  xiv-xv. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      87 

(Tun  lecteur  recule,  avant  de  s' engager  dans  un 
labyrinthe  dont  il  craint  de  perdre  le  fil.  Je  ne 
sais  plus  quel  ecrivain  a  fait  la  remarque  que, 
toutes  les  fois  qu'on  veut  lire  cet  ouvrage  d'un 
bout  a  1'autre  et  d'une  seule  traite,  on  eprouve 
quelque  fatigue,  et  que,  si  on  se  borne  a  en  lire 
une  page  prise  au  hasard,  on  ne  ressent  que  le 
charme  d'une  -ceuvre  superieure.  .  .  .  Les  meil- 
leurs  esprits  et  les  meilleurs  juges  persistent 
cependant  a  regarder  cette  seconde  partie  de 
"la  Democratic"  comme  Pceuvre  de  Tocque- 
ville  qui  atteste  le  plus  de  puissance  intellec- 
tuelle.  .  .  . 

I  think  that  the  fact  that  the  first  part  dealt 
with  the  more  purely  political  aspects  of  the 
United  States  had  something  to  do  with  the 
relative  indifference  that  was  the  fate  of  the  sec 
ond  part,  for,  as  has  been  seen,  the  American 
theory  and  practice  of  government  was  a  matter 
of  paramount  interest  in  the  restless  Europe 
of  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  more  serious 
criticisms  were  ever  made  of  the  work  —  criti 
cisms,  I  mean,  that  have  proved  valid  —  than 
those  minor  ones  of  style  and  sentiment.  The 
method  was  too  original,  too  well  sustained,  to 
be  condemned  in  the  eyes  of  thoughtful  men. 
And  the  attitude  was  too  broad  to  offend  even 
those  who  would  be  little  inclined  to  find  great 
good  in  the  democratic  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  For,  when  we  have  stated  that 


88      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

Tocqueville  believed  in  the  democratic  prin 
ciple,  we  can  admit  that  in  the  rest  he  was  non- 
partisan.  His  study  is  indeed  centered  upon 
the  American  aspect  of  democracy.  But  this 
is  probably  the  case  only  because  he  had  at 
hand  no  other  good  example  of  the  democratic 
theory  applied  and  more  or  less  successfully 
worked  out  in  a  large  modern  state.  His  inter 
est,  after  all,  is  not  in  the  democracy  of  the 
United  States,  except  as  in  an  example:  cer 
tainly  he  does  not  consider  it  a  model  to  be 
followed  elsewhere,  nor  even  as  in  all  aspects  the 
criterion  for  the  land  where  it  was  developed. 
There  is  no  proselytizing  intention  anywhere. 
One  does  not  find  that  he  unconditionally  con 
demns  the  monarchical  form  of  government; 
so  long  as  the  majority  is  able  to  express  itself, 
so  long  as  all  have  equal  rights  to  that  expression, 
the  form  of  bureaucracy,  since  there  must  be  a 
head  in  every  state,  is  a  matter  of  minor  im 
portance,  and  may  have  various  solutions,  (cf. 
p.  107,  note  35.)  There  is  none  of  the  warmth 
of  the  thoroughgoing  partisan  in  Tocqueville; 
on  the  contrary,  one  feels  that  he  is,  as  we  say, 
"all  mind";  and  this  mind  goes  on  unswerv 
ingly  in  the  development  of  its  idea,  very  oblivi 
ous  and  very  careless  of  traditional  connotations 
of  words  and  of  the  thoughtlessly  preconceived 
ideas  that  have  spoiled  so  much  of  the  effort 
made  in  France  to  understand  America.  What- 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      89 

ever  we  may  decide  as  to  his  method,  he  is 
scientific  in  his  attitude;  incidentally,  he  is  a 
great  relief  in  that  respect  from  what  we  have 
seen,  and  from  the  most  of  what  is  to  be  studied. 
In  the  passage  cited,  Madame  de  Tocqueville 
mentions  the  extremely  close  texture  of  his 
argument  in  the  second  part  of  his  work,  and 
advances  that  as  one  reason  why  the  book  was 
found  difficult  to  read.  Another  reason  was 
that  mentioned,  that  the  matter  was  of  some 
what  less  interest.  A  third  difference  in  the 
two  parts  presents  itself  upon  the  reading  of 
the  work.  "La  Democratic  en  Amerique"  is 
not  a  history,  but  neither  is  it  strictly  a  com 
mentary,  as  one  is  inclined  at  first  to  classify 
it  —  and  in  this  sense,  that  it  is  but  sparingly 
documented.  This  is  a  superficial  distinction, 
one  may  say,  since  he  has  treated  his  subject 
with  such  completeness.  Nevertheless,  it  is  the 
reason  why  his  work  has  rather  the  character  of 
an  essay  than  that  of  a  minute  study.  The  third 
difference  between  the  two  parts  that  was  re 
ferred  to  is  this:  that  in  the  second  part  this 
lack  of  documentation  makes  itself  more  felt 
than  in  the  first.  In  the  section  dealing  with 
the  political  questions  he  is  able,  without  speci 
fically  naming  certain  laws,  to  treat  of  them 
under  their  general  headings  in  relation  to  the 
democratic  spirit.  Literary  tendencies  are  less 
tangible,  and  the  fact  that  in  all  the  considera- 


90      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

tion  of  literature  he  does  not  mention  a  single 
American  name  upon  which  one  can  base  the 
conclusions  that  he  draws,  is  confusing  and  un 
satisfactory  in  a  sense.  Granted  Madame  de 
Tocqueville's  statement  as  to  the  closeness  of 
the  reasoning  in  this  second  part,  it  is  not  hard 
to  understand  why  it  was  little  read  —  why 
there  are  relatively  few  articles  upon  it  in 
periodicals. 

It  was  mentioned  that  in  the  first  part,  his 
idea  is  very  evidently  to  develop  the  workings 
of  the  democratic  state;  one  constantly  feels 
reminded  in  the  second  part  that  his  interest 
lies  in  developing  what  he  conceived  to  be  the 
normal  working  of  the  democratic  principles 
upon  men  and  consequently  upon  literature. 

It  will  frequently  be  noticed  that  his  con 
clusions  are  singularly  like  those  of  other  French 
critics  as  to  the  characteristics  of  American 
literature;  but  these  conclusions  are  not  the 
result  of  preconception  of  the  kind  that  was  so 
very  common  in  France.  There  are  times  when 
the  statements  made  by  him  do  not  seem  be 
yond  question,  but  one  does  at  least  feel  that, 
even  when  this  is  the  case,  Tocqueville  arrived 
at  them  by  an  unprejudiced  acceptance  of  what 
he  considered  the  truth  about  democracies,  and 
that  his  developments  of  his  opinions  are  logical 
rather  than  simply  dictated  by  his  wishes  with 
regard  to  the  final  conclusion. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      91 

"The  truth  about  democracies"  has  just  been 
referred  to  as  being  Tocqueville's  concern;  this 
is  strictly  correct,  and  to  the  extent  that,  as  was 
mentioned  before,  his  concern  for  the  United 
States  is  really  only  that  for  the  medium  through 
which  the  study  of  the  larger  question  is  to  be 
made.  When  Tocqueville  reaches  a  conclusion 
about  American  literature,  it  is  likely  thus  to 
be  made  to  serve  as  one  about  the  literature  of 
democracies  in  general.  He  has  been  called, 
and  it  is  unquestionable  that  he  indeed  was,  a 
" generalizing  historian."3  And  there  is  no 
better  example  of  his  attitude  toward  this  view 
than  in  his  discussion  of  the  methods  of  his 
torians.  Incidentally,  it  will  be  noticed  that 
here,  as  elsewhere,  he  seems  rather  to  be  writing 
simply  upon  democracies  in  general  than  upon 
the  United  States. 

M.  de  la  Fayette  dit  quelque  part  dans  ses 
Memoires  que  le  systeme  exagere  des  causes 
generales  procurait  de  merveilleuses  consola 
tions  aux  hommes  publics  m6diocres.  J'ajoute 
qu'il  en  donne  d'admirables  aux  historiens 
mediocres.  II  leur  fournit  tou jours  quelques 
grandes  raisons  qui  les  tirent  promptement 
d'affaire  a  Fendroit  le  plus  difficile  de  leur  livre, 
et  favorisent  la  faiblesse  ou  la  paresse  de  leur 
esprit,  tout  en  faisant  honneur  a  sa  profondeur. 

Pour  moi,  je  pense  qu'il  n'y  a  pas  d'epoque  ou 

3  V.  Gabriel  Monod  in  his  article  on  Albert  Sorel  in  the 
11  Revue  historique,"  vol.  XCIV,  p.  91  (Sept.-Dec.,  1906). 


92      FRENCH    CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

il  ne  faille  attribuer  une  partie  des  e*ve*nements 
de  ce  monde  £  des  fails  tres  ge*ne*raux,  et  une 
autre  &  des  influences  tres  particulieres.4 

This  remark  is  introduced  into  his  discussion 
of  the  writing  of  history  in  aristocracies  and  in 
democracies,  —  the  whole  treatment  in  this  sec 
ond  part  is  conducted  through  such  compari 
son  --  of  which  he  has  this  to  say:  that  in  the 
aristocracy,  where  certain  individuals  are  very 
important,  historians  attach  much  importance 
to  them  in  explaining  the  development  of  affairs, 
and  are  thus  likely  to  seek  minutely  into  their 
lives  to  find  the  explanation  for  this  or  for  that. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  democracies,  where  the 
individual  is  of  little  account,  the  actions  of  all 
are  consulted,  which  is  only  saying  that  general 
causes  are  sought  out.5  And  even  the  rank  and 
file  of  historians  adopt  this  generalizing  method, 
with  the  results  that  he  suggested  above  (note 
4).  And  in  parenthesis,  there  never  was  a  more 
generalizing  book  than  this  very  " Democratic 
en  Ame>ique,"  a  fact  that  Tocqueville  would 
doubtless  have  been  the  first  to  acknowledge; 
what  saves  it  is  the  fact  that  its  author  hap 
pened  not  to  be  mediocre. 

This  disposition  toward  generalization  seems, 
indeed,  to  be  his  conception  of  the  distinguishing 

4  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  145  (DA  will  be  used  to  designate  "De  la 
Democratic  en  Ame'rique"). 
6  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  143. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      93 

characteristic  of  democratic  thought,  and  that 
of  America  incidentally. 

It  is,  however,  far  from  being  the  introduc 
tory  process  that  one  would  expect,  perhaps,  to 
find  in  a  people  with  small  instruction  or  little 
culture.  On  the  contrary,  he  considers  it  to 
be  a  very  late  development  in  the  history  of 
thought.  It  is,  in  fact,  impossible  to  generalize 
before  one  has  a  considerable  acquaintance 
with  particular  facts.  And  one  must,  inevitably, 
find  general  relationships  existing  between  cer 
tain  of  the  facts  of  the  knowledge  that  has  been 
acquired  during  centuries  of  thought  and  inves 
tigation.6  It  is  to  be  noticed  here,  incidentally, 
that  Tocqueville  does  not  fall  into  the  seem 
ingly  current  idea  that  the  Americans  are  a 
new  people: 

Les  Americains  sont  un  peuple  tres  ancien  et 
tres  eclair^,  qui  a  recontre  un  pays  nou- 
veau.  .  .  .7 

But  he  finds  that  of  the  two  branches  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race,  the  American  is  the  one  that 
indulges  more  in  this  method  of  generalization. 
The  reason  for  this  lies  in  the  status  of  men  in 
the  two  nations.  For  in  an  aristocracy,  where 
permanent  distinctions  of  caste  and  of  wealth 
exist,  the  members  of  each  become  thoroughly 
unlike  those  of  the  others,  and  to  the  extent  that 
"on  dirait  qu'il  y  a  autant  d'humanites  distinctes 

6  DA,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  23-5.  7  Ibid.,  p.  59. 


94      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

qu'il  y  a  de  classes/7  What  would  apply  to  one 
caste  would  not  be  true  of  another;  generaliza 
tion  would  become  impossible.  In  a  democracy 
like  the  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  where 
all  men  are  approximately  equal  in  condition, 
or  become  so  after  a  time,  what  applies  to  one 
must  be  true  of  a  very  great  number.  Generali 
zation  becomes  as  natural  there  as  it  is  im 
possible  in  many  cases  in  an  aristocracy.8 

This  tendency  to  generalization  is  reflected, 
first  of  all,   in  matters  of   language.9     In   an 

8  In  his  studies  upon  the  United  States,  Tocqueville  was 
assisted  by  Professor  Jared  Sparks  of  Harvard,  who  gave  him 
information,  or  obtained  it  for  him.    V.  Herbert  Baxter  Adams' 
"Jared   Sparks   and   Tocqueville,"   published   in   the   "Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,"  in  1898.    One  therefore  naturally 
thinks  of  Sparks  as  one  of  the  American  historians  with  whom 
Tocqueville  must  have  been  most  familiar.    Sparks  could  hardly 
be  used  as  an  illustration  in  point  to  support  Tocqueville's 
contention  as  to  the  characteristics  of  democratic  historians; 
and  indeed  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  be.    This  circum 
stance  is  cited  here  simply  to  show  how  desirable  a  documenta 
tion  of  the  "Democratic  en  AmeYique"  would  be,  even  now,  as 
a  sort  of  test  for  Tocqueville's  intensely  interesting  theory  —  or 
what  sometimes  appears,  for  all  its  plausibility,  as  little  else. 

9  V.  Chapter  XVI  of  the  first  division  of  this  second  part 
(vol.    Ill,    pp.    108-119),   entitled   "Comment   la   democratic 
ame*ricaine  a  modifie"  la  langue  anglaise."    It  is  one  of  the  chap 
ters  that  deal  definitely  with  the  United  States;  in  the  greater 
number  of  those  of  this  second  part,  Tocqueville,  it  must  be 
repeated,  seems  not  to  be  considering  the  United  States  much 
more  than  any  other  modern  state  with  democratic  ideals  as 
his  particular  example.    It  will  be  noticed,  in  his  treatment  of 
poetry,  for  example,  that  the  only  names  he  mentions  in  support 
of  certain  ideas  are  those  of  European  poets. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      95 

aristocracy,  it  is  the  educated  caste,  the  smaller 
number,  that  sets  the  pace  in  matters  of  lan 
guage.  It  is  not  possible  to  maintain  that 
Tocqueville  really  supposed  that  the  educated 
class  governed  the  language  of  the  people  at 
large;  but  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  in  this 
place  his  words  are  somewhat  ambiguous,  and 
that  they  lend  themselves  to  a  misunderstanding 
—  a  misunderstanding  that  would  not,  however, 
be  at  all  unfavorable  to  the  thesis  that  he  de 
velops.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  so  far:  reading 
him  in  good  faith,  and  trying  rather  to  appreciate 
his  point  of  view  and  to  reconcile  it  with  the 
facts  as  we  understand  them,  we  can  simply 
suppose  that  here  he  is  speaking  rather  of  the 
written  language  that,  ipso  facto,  impresses 
itself  for  a  longer  period  than  the  spoken  upon 
those  who  can  get  into  contact  with  it;  that 
it  is,  in  short,  the  language  of  the  smaller 
number  in  an  aristocracy,  but  of  the  number 
that,  nevertheless,  is  powerful  over  the  greater 
in  all  matters  where  they  come  into  contact, 
and  that  consequently  does,  after  all,  have  a 
very  considerable  influence  over  the  trend  of 
language.  This  is  doubtless  what  Tocqueville 
meant  to  say,  and  it  is  a  long  way  from  being 
equivalent  to  the  simple  statement  —  of  which 
he  might  be  accused  —  that  in  an  aristocracy 
the  educated  minority,  and  in  a  democracy  the 
people  at  large,  more  or  less  uneducated,  con- 


96      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

trol  the  progress  of  a  language.  But  the  pas 
sage  that  deals  with  this  question  should  be 
given,  at  least  in  part: 

Dans  les  aristocraties,  la  langue  doit  naturelle- 
ment  se  participer  au  repos  ou  se  tiennent  toutes 
choses.  On  fait  peu  de  mots  nouveaux,  parce 
qu'il  se  fait  peu  de  choses  nouvelles;  et,  fit- 
on  des  choses  nouvelles,  on  s'efforcerait  de  les 
peindre  avec  les  mots  connus  et  dont  la  tradi 
tion  a  fixe*  le  sens. 

S'il  arrive  que  Tesprit  humain  s'y  agite  enfin 
de  lui-meme,  ou  que  la  lumiere,  pen£trant  du 
dehors,  le  reveille,  les  expressions  nouvelles  qu'on 
cre*e  ont  un  caractere  savant,  intellectuel  et 
philosophique  qui  indique  qu'elles  ne  doivent 
pas  la  naissance  &  une  democratic.  Lorsque  la 
chute  de  Constantinople  eut  fait  refluer  les 
sciences  et  les  lettres  vers  TOccident,  la  langue 
frangaise  se  trouva  presque  tout  a  coup  envahie 
par  une  multitude  de  mots  nouve^ux,  qui  tous 
avaient  leur  racine  dans  le  grec  et  le  latin.  On 
vit  alors  en  France  un  n6ologisme  e>udit,  qui 
n'etait  &  1'usage  que  des  classes  6claire*es,  et 
dont  les  effets  ne  se  firent  jamais  sentir  ou  ne 
parvinrent  qu'&  la  longue  jusqu'au  peuple. 

Toutes  les  nations  de  TEurope  donnerent 
success! vement  le  meme  spectacle.  Le  seul 
Milton  a  introduit  dans  la  langue  anglaise  plus 
de  six  cents  mots,  presque  tous  tire's  du  latin, 
du  grec,  ou  de  Th^breu.  .  .  . 

Le  mouvement  perp6tuel  qui  regne  au  sein 
d'une  democratic  tend,  au  contraire,  &  y  renou- 
veler  sans  cesse  la  face  de  la  langue,  comme 
celle  des  affaires.  .  .  .  Alors  qu'elles  (demo- 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      97 

cratic  nations)  n'ont  pas  le  besoin  de  changer 
les  mots,  elles  en  sentent  quelquefois  le  desir.  .  .  . 
Chez  ces  peuples,  c'est  la  majorit£  qui  fait  la 
loi  en  matiere  de  langue,  ainsi  qu'en  tout  le 
reste.  ...  La  plupart  des  mots  crees  ou  admis 
par  elle  .  .  .  serviront  principalement  a  ex- 
primer  les  besoins  de  Pindustrie,  les  passions 
des  partis  ou  les  details  de  T  administration 
publique.  .  .  .10 

And  these  new  words,  inasmuch  as  the  people 
who  create  them  are  not  educated  in  the  classics, 
will  not  be  of  Latin  or  of  Greek  type,  but  chosen 
from  the  modern  languages.  Greek  or  Latin 
words  will,  indeed,  be  adapted,  and  they  will 
be  used,  strange  to  say,  above  all  by  the 
ignorant: 

"Le  desir  tout  democratique  de  sortir  de 
sa  sphere  les  porte  souvent  a  vouloir  rehausser 
une  profession  tres  grossiere  par  un  nom  grec 
ou  latin.  Plus  le  metier  est  bas  et  eloigne  de 
la  science,  plus  le  nom  est  pompeux  et  erudit. 
C'est  ainsi  que  nos  danseurs  de  corde  se  sont 
transformes  en  acrobates  et  en  funambules."11 

To  return  to  the  adapting  of  words  to  new 
needs;  it  was  noted  that  Tocqueville  finds  that 
they  are  generally  chosen  from  the  modern 
languages.  And  of  the  modern  languages,  it  is 
naturally  the  one  native  to  the  people  in  ques 
tion  that  will  furnish  the  most  of  these. 

10  DA,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  109-11.  »  Ibid.,  p.  112. 


98      FRENCH   CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

And  here  we  arrive  at  the  generalizing  ten 
dency  which  was  already  noticed  in  another 
connection.  The  very  use  of  native  words  in 
new  senses  gradually  takes  from  them  the 
definiteness  that  was  originally  theirs,  and 
tends  to  leave  them  finally  with  as  many  sig 
nifications  as  there  are  contexts. 

Cela  fait  que  les  e*crivains  n'ont  presque 
jamais  1'air  de  s'attacher  &  une  seule  pense*e, 
mais  qu'ils  semblent  toujours  viser  au  milieu 
d'un  groupe  d'ide*es,  laissant  au  lecteur  le  soin 
de  juger  celle  qui  est  atteinte. 

Ceci  est  une  consequence  facheuse  de  la 
democratic.  J'aimerais  mieux  qu'on  he*rissat  la 
langue  de  mots  chinois,  tartares  ou  hurons,  que 
de  rendre  incertain  le  sens  des  mots  frangais.12 

Expressions  that  seemed  common  or  vulgar 
originally  thus  come  to  be  used  with  a  better 
connotation,  and  the  reverse,  too,  might  take 
place.  For,  he  says,  there  are  but  few  expres 
sions  that  are  inherently  vulgar  or  distinguished : 
usage  generally  makes  them  the  one  or  the 
other;  and  usage  becoming  flexible  on  account 

11  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  113.  Here,  again,  although  Tocqueville 
gave  the  impression,  up  to  the  last  phrase,  of  having  the  United 
States  in  mind  —  since  his  chapter  is  on  the  English  language  as 
found  in  the  United  States  —  nevertheless,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  his  mind  was  running  at  least  as  much  upon  French. 
Therefore,  the  data  upon  which  he  bases  his  conclusions  we  may 
suppose  to  be,  here  as  elsewhere  in  the  second  part,  quite  as 
probably  French  as  American. 


FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      99 

of  the  mingling  of  classes,  their  original  sense 
is  lost.13  The  constant  change  that  takes  place 
in  a  democracy  is  of  a  nature  to  break  down  one 
conviction  after  another,  and  to  leave  the  greater 
number  of  men  with  this  in  common,  that  they 
have  general  rather  than  definite  ideas  about 
most  matters:  the  flexible  general  formula  is 
thus  the  only  one  that  they  can  maintain  for 
any  length  of  time.  The  words  of  the  language 
and  the  beliefs  of  the  nation  are  thus  mutually 
responsive.14 

Man  in  a  democracy  has  but  two  sorts  of 
ideas: 

II  n'a  que  des  idees  tres  particulieres  et  tres 
claires,  ou  des  notions  tres  generates  et  tres 
vagues:  Pespace  interm6diare  est  vide. 

There  is,  therefore,  a  very  great  probability 
that,  in  ceasing  to  deal  with  matters  of  definite 
knowledge,  the  man  in  a  democracy  will  fall 
at  once  into  the  region  of  large  generalities  and 
become  bombastic  —  "boursoufle."  And  this, 
Tocqueville  says,  is  precisely  the  case  of  Ameri 
can  writers  and  speakers.  Poets  in  a  democ 
racy,  for  instance,  seek  to  express  the  colossal 
—  "le  gigantesque"  —  in  the  pursuit  of  which 
they  are  likely  to  lose  sight  of  the  really  im 
portant — "le  grand/'15 

13  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  115.  14  Ibid.,   p.  118. 

15  Ibid.,  pp.  131-2;  ch.  xviii:  "Pourquoi  les  e"crivains  et  les 
orateurs  am^ricains  sont  souvent  boursouftes." 


100      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

And  this  naturally  introduces  here  his  ideas 
about  American  poetry  —  although  it  is  not 
in  the  same  chapter,  nor  under  the  head  of 
what  is  inflated  or  bombastic  that  he  treats  the 
subject. 

But  he  does  not  think  that  democratic  nations 
will  be  likely  to  produce  poetry  with  that  re 
straint  in  imagination  or  inspiration,  or  control 
over  them,  that  is  essential  to  the  highest 
expression.  It  will  not  be  a  prosaic  one;  he 
seems  rather  to  fear  that  in  respect  to  imagina 
tion  it  may  be  incoherent  and  far  too  unreal.18 

For  poetry,  to  Tocqueville,  could  not  be  con 
sistent  with  any  distortion: 

La  poe*sie,  a  mes  yeux,  est  la  recherche  et 
la  peinture  de  Tid6al.17 

Not,  however,  that  it  is  simply  the  repre 
sentation  of  the  world  in  so  many  aspects 
accurately  described.  A  certain  degree  of  ideal 
ization  in  this  representation  is,  to  him,  the  very 
function  of  the  poet;  —  only,  the  imagination, 
in  leading  the  poet  too  far  afield,  will  completely 
estrange  him  from  that  degree  of  reality  which 
is,  as  it  were,  the  foundation  of  the  ideal. 

This  is  an  excess  that  American  poetry  might 
fall  into,  if  it  is  developed  to  a  degree.  A  men 
ace  that  seems  to  appear  to  him  more  real  is  a 
probable  lack  of  effort  on  the  part  of  Americans 

16  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  133.  17  Ibid.,  p.  120. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      101 

in  those  lines.  His  reasons  lie  again  in  the 
characteristics  of  the  democratic  form  of  gov 
ernment  in  its  effect  upon  men. 

Chez  les  nations  aristocratiques,  il  arrive 
quelquefois  que  le  corps  agit  comme  de  lui- 
meme,  tandis  que  Fame  est  plongee  dans  un 
repos  qui  lui  pese.  Chez  ces  nations  le  peuple 
lui-meme  fait  souvent  voir  des  gouts  poetiques, 
et  son  esprit  s'elance  parfois  au  dela  et  au- 
dessus  de  ce  qui  Fenvironne. 

Mais  dans  les  democraties,  F  amour  des  jouis- 
sances  materielles,  Fidee  du  mieux,  la  concur 
rence,  le  charme  prochain  du  succes,  sont  comme 
autant  d'aiguillons  qui  precipitent  les  pas  de 
chaque  homme  dans  la  carriere  qu'il  a  embrassee, 
et  lui  defendent  de  s'en  ecarter  un  seul  moment. 
Le  principal  effort  de  Fame  va  de  ce  cote. 
L'imagination  n'est  point  eteinte;  mais  elle 
s'adonne  presque  exclusivement  a  concevoir 
Futile  et  a  representer  le  reel.18 

So  much  for  the  reasons  that  might  keep 
Americans,  even  with  a  considerable  talent, 
from  giving  attention  to  the  writing  of  poetry. 

There  are  more  serious  causes  why,  even 
granting  a  certain  liberation  among  some  from 
the  bonds  that  attach  men  too  closely  to  the 
details  of  their  daily  life,  poetry  may  not  be 
produced.  There  are  two  that  have  to  do  with 
its  subject-matter. 

The  practical  trend  of  democratic  education, 

18  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  121. 


102      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

together  with  the  new  faith  in  the  future  of 
humanity  that  equality  in  opportunity  brings 
about,  diverts  attention  from  the  past:  old 
legends  and  old  history  will  not  furnish  demo 
cratic  poets  with  the  characters  around  whose 
actions  they  will  write.  Their  interest  is  rather 
in  the  future  than  in  the  past.  He  does  not 
deny  that  the  present  may  also  present  a  certain 
interest  in  democratic  nations,  only  it  is  not 
possible  that  it  should  be  so  to  the  same  degree 
as  in  aristocracies. 

Apres  avoir  enlev6  a  la  po£sie  le  pass6, 
I'6galit6  lui  enleve  en  partie  le  present. 

Chez  les  peuples  aristocratiques,  il  existe  un 
certain  nombre  d'individus  privil£gi£s.  ...  La 
foule  ne  les  voit  jamais  de  fort  pres  ...  on  a 
peu  a  faire  pour  rendre  po£tique  la  peinture  de 
ces  hommes. 

D'une  autre  part  .  .  .  des  classes  ignorantes, 
humbles  et  asservies;  et  celles-ci  pretent  a  la 
po£sie  par  Pexces  meme  de  leur  grossieret6  et 
de  leur  misere,  comme  les  autres  par  leur  raffine- 
ment  et  leur  grandeur.  .  .  . 

Dans  les  soci6t£s  d6mocratiques,  oil  les 
hommes  sont  tous  tres  petits  et  fort  semblables, 
chacun  en  s'envisageant  soi-meme,  voit  a  Fin- 
stant  tous  les  autres  .  .  .  un  objet  d'une  gran 
deur  mediocre,  et  qu'on  apergoit  distinctement 
de  tous  les  cot6s,  ne  pretera  jamais  a  l'ide*al.19 

What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  poetry  of  a 
19  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  123. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      103 

democracy?  He  is  ready  to  admit  that,  so  far 
as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  it  has,  as 
yet,  no  poets.20  But  it  has  ideas  that  lend 
themselves  to  poetry,  and  that  will  some  day 
be  developed  in  that  form.  The  intimate  resem 
blance  that  he  supposes  to  exist  among  all  the 
members  of  a  democracy,  and  that  precludes 
the  poetry  of  the  court  or  of  the  peasant,  will 
some  day  direct  attention  to  the  destinies  of 
humanity  as  a  whole.  Poetry  will  cease  to  deal 
with  the  particular:  the  characters  that  it  will 
present  will  be  types,  not  individuals: 

Les  ecrivains  qui,  de  nos  jours,  ont  si  admi- 
rablement  reproduit  les  traits  de  Childe-Harold, 
de  Ren6  et  de  Jocelyn  n'ont  pas  pretendu 
raconter  les  actions  d'un  homme;  ils  ont  voulu 
illuminer  et  agrandir  certains  cotes  encore  ob- 
scurs  du  cceur  humain. 

Ce  sont  la  les  poemes  de  la  democratic. 

L'egalite  ne  d6truit  done  pa^  tous  les  objets 
de  la  poesie;  elle  les  rend  moins  nombreux  et 
plus  vastes.21 

Is  the  poetry  of  nature,  which  almost  all  the 
French  critics  we  have  encountered  in  this  study 
feel  to  be  the  key-note  all  too  seldom  sounded 
of  the  true  poetry  of  America;  —  is  this  poetry 
of  nature,  inspired  by  the  solitude  of  plain 
and  forest  and  mountain,  indeed  the  true 
expression  of  American  poets?  He  says: 

20  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  125.  21  Ibid.,  p.  130. 


104      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

Je  suis  convaincu  qu'a  la  longue  la  de*mo- 
cratie  de*tourne  Timagination  de  tout  ce  qui  est 
ext£rieur  a  Thomme,  pour  ne  la  fixer  que  sur 
1'homme.22 

On  s'occupe  beaucoup  en  Europe  des  deserts 
de  FAme'rique;  mais  les  Ame>icains  eux-memes 
n'y  songent  guere.  .  .  .  Le  peuple  ame*ricain  se 
voit  marcher  lui-meme  a  travers  ces  deserts, 
desse*chant  les  marais,  redressant  les  fleuves.  .  .  . 
Cette  image  magnifique  .  .  .  suit  chacun  d'eux 
dans  les  moindres  de  ses  actions.23 

One  is  probably  likely  to  feel  that  here,  in 
one  respect  at  least,  French  criticism  of  our 
literature  was  beginning  to  find  a  right  direc 
tion.  One  can  only  be  surprised  that  the  very 
facts  of  the  case  should  not,  before  1840,  have 
begun  to  change  the  opinions  of  those  interested 
in  America  as  to  the  destinies  of  its  poetry. 

It  has  already  been  noticed  that  Tocqueville 
felt  that  literature,  from  the  productive  side, 
could  be  only  a  secondary  interest  with  Ameri 
cans  for  some  time  to  come.  The  reading  public 
would  not,  in  any  case,  be  very  likely  to  appre 
ciate  works  more  than  usually  thoughtful  or  in 
any  way  excellent.  On  the  contrary: 

N 'ay ant  qu'un  temps  fort  court  a  donner  aux 
lettres,  il  veulent  le  mettre  a  profit  tout  en- 
tier.  Ils  aiment  les  livres  qu'on  se  procure  sans 
peine,  qui  se  lisent  vite,  qui  n'exigent  point  de 
recherches  savantes  pour  etre  compris.  .  .  . 

«  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  124.  »  Ibid,  pp.,  125-6. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      105 

Les  petits  ecrits  y  seront  plus  frequents  que 
les  gros  livres,  Fesprit  que  l'£rudition,  Tima- 
gination  que  la  profondeur.  .  .  .  On  tachera 
d'etonner  plutot  que  de  plaire,  et  Ton  s'efforcera 
d'entrainer  les  passions  plus  que  de  charmer  le 
gout.24 

For  such  a  people,  what  would  be  the  most 
natural  preference  in  literary  matters?  Tocque- 
ville  thinks  that  without  any  doubt  it  is  not  in 
reading  itself,  so  much  as  in  the  theatre,  that 
this  will  be  found. 

The  theatre  is,  indeed,  he  says, 'the  popular 
form  of  literature,  and  was  so,  to  a  degree,  even 
in  the  aristocratic  nations.  There  the  people 
gained  entrance  as  well  as  the  privileged  classes, 
and  its  opinion  was  of  more  import  than  in 
judgments  upon  other  forms  of  expression  that 
may  be  called  literary. 

This  being  so,  it  will  follow  that  in  a  democ 
racy  the  theatre  will  be  the  child  of  popular 
opinion  in  the  very  widest  sense;  it  will  be  the 
exact  expression  of  the  ideas  of  its  spectators, 
and  the  aesthetic  or  moral  ideal  of  the  more 
cultured  class  will  have  to  find  its  expression 
elsewhere,  or  only  to  a  small  degree  upon  the 
stage.25 

This  is  what  may  be  expected  in  democracies 
at  large,  and  in  the  United  States  among  the 
others,  ultimately.  But  for  the  present,  the 

24  DA,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  99-100.  M  Ibid.,  p.  135. 


106      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

theatre  had  not  made  any  considerable  progress 
in  America. 

The  explanation  of  this  temporary  condition 
he  finds  principally  in  the  nature  of  the  origin 
of  the  nation.  The  Puritan  ideal  could  not  be 
expected  to  foster  a  kind  of  literature  that  was 
popular  because  above  all  it  diverts;  and  besides, 
he  says,  the  theatre  was  singled  out  by  the 
Puritans  as  an  especially  evil  form  of  amuse 
ment.26  Not  only  that,  but  because  of  the  very- 
regularity  of  life,  —  the  sobriety  with  which  the 
Puritan  ideal  had  tinged  all  American  customs, 
—  the  theatre  could  hardly  be  expected  to 
thrive. 

Two  other  reasons:  the  fact  that  the  United 
States  had  had  no  great  political  disasters,  and 
that  the  lives  of  individuals  were  less  likely 
to  be  rendered  tragic  here  than  in  lands 
where  marriage  is  not  always  possible  for  those 
who  love  —  the  possibility,  in  short,  as  we  may 
infer,  for  men  to  lead  a  normal  and  happy 
existence  both  in  their  national  and  in  their 
individual  consciousness,  is  not  likely  to  pro 
duce  either  tragedy  or  comedy.27 

26  DA,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  140-1. 

27  II  n'y  a  point  de  sujet  dc  drame  dans  un  pays  qui  n'a  pas 
e'te'  te*moin  de  grandes  catastrophes  politiques,  et  ou  Tamour 
mene  toujours  par  un  chemin  direct  et  facile  ail  manage.    Des 
gens  qui  emploient  tous  les  jours  de  la  semaine  &  faire  for 
tune  et  le  dimanche  &  prier  Dieu,  ne  pretent  point  &  la  muse 
comique.  (id.) 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      107 

Certain  of  the  characteristics  of  democratic 
literatures,  and  of  the  American  incidentally, 
as  Tocqueville  understood  them,  have  already 
been  noticed.  He  goes  further. 

Literature  as  an  industry,  first  of  all,  he  thinks 
will  be  a  very  common  manifestation:28  " sellers 
of  ideas "  will  be  legion.  And  their  wares  will 
naturally  be  at  once  what  the  public  desires,  and 
what  can  be  rapidly  enough  produced  to  bring 
the  seller  his  fortune.  If  he  does  not  write  the 
sort  of  thing  that  we  have  already  found  indi 
cated  —  the  somewhat  flimsy  tinsel  work  that 
is  likely  to  please  for  a  moment  and  then  fall 
into  nothing  with  the  passing  of  a  few  years  — 
if  he  does  not  write  this,  he  will  write  of  what 
is  in  one  way  or  another  useful,29  or  of  what  is  of 
interest  in  connection  with  religion,  or  politics, 
for  example. 

In  short,  the  interest  will  be  entirely  away 
from  art  for  its  own  sake,  entirely  away  from 
the  forms  that  will  no  longer  be  understood. 

J'ai  fait  voir  —  a-propos  de  la  me"thode  phi- 
losophique  des  Americains,  que  rien  ne  revolte 
plus  1'esprit  humain  dans  les  temps  d'egalite 

28  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  103. 

29  Ibid.,  p.  80,  where  he  discusses  the  arts  more  particularly; 
yet  this  is  a  statement  that  supplements  the  passage  where  he 
discusses  the  reading  of  Americans  as  he  infers  it  to  be  from 
an  examination    of    the    American    book-shops  in  Ch.  XIII: 
"Physionomie  litte*raire  des  siecles  de"mocratiques,"  DA,  vol. 
Ill,  pp.  92-3. 


108      FRENCH   CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

que  l'ide*e  de  se  soumettre  &  des  formes.  Les 
hommes  qui  vivent  dans  ces  temps  supportent 
impati eminent  les  figures;  les  symboles  leur 
paraissent  des  artifices  pu6riles.  .  .  .*° 

The  theoretical  character  of  these  passages  — 
their  prophetic  rather  than  their  really  descrip 
tive  trend  —  is  evident.  Tocqueville,  too,  would 
not  have  us  think  that  he  means  all  that  he 
says  to  apply  to  the  American  literature  of  his 
day. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  goes  so  far  as  to  declare, 
with  many  others  whose  writings  have  been 
noticed  here,  that  literary  America  was  really 
English  in  its  traditions.  He  seems  to  make  the 
distinction  between  what  we  are  accustomed  to 
call  a  " pseudo-literature "  -one  imperfectly, 
if  at  all,  representing  general  contemporary 
opinion  —  and  the  real  literature  of  the  United 
States.  After  stating  that  the  American  read 
ing  public  generally  waits  for  English  judg 
ments  upon  an  American  work  before  pro 
nouncing  for  or  against  it,  he  introduces  his 
distinction  with  the  following  rather  caustic 
remark,  and  develops  his  idea  briefly. 

C'est  ainsi,  qu'en  fait  de  tableaux  on  laisse 
volontiers  &  Tauteur  de  Poriginal  le  droit  de 
juger  la  copie.  , 

Les  habitants  des  Etats-Unis  n'ont  done  point 
encore,  &  proprement  parler,  de  litterature.  Les 

30  DA,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  42-3. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      109 

seuls  auteurs  que  je  reconnaisse  pour  Ameri- 
cains  sont  des  journalistes.  Ceux-ci  ne  sont  pas 
de  grands  ecrivains,  mais  ils  parlent  la  langue 
du  pays  et  s'en  font  entendre.  Je  ne  vois  dans 
les  autres  que  des  etrangers.  Ils  sont  pour  les 
Americains  ce  que  furent  pour  nous  les  imita- 
teurs  des  Grecs  et  des  Romains  a  Tepoque  de  la 
renaissance  des  lettres,  un  objet  de  curiosite, 
non  de  generale  sympathie.  Ils  amusent  1'es- 
prit,  et  n'agissent  point  sur  les  mceurs.31 

31  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  94.  As  was  stated  at  the  beginning  of 
this  chapter  upon  Tocqueville,  any  commentary  upon  him  with 
a  view  to  arriving  at  a  fairly  definite  idea  of  his  sources  would 
be  bound  to  be  far  longer  than  the  original.  And  this  study  is 
rather  an  attempt  to  present  in  its  general  lines  the  French 
criticism  upon  our  literature,  without  giving  any  one  critic  undue 
space.  It  is  possible  here  merely  to  note  in  reference  to  the 
citation  above  that  Tocqueville,  too,  believed  a  literature  to 
be  representative  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  representative  of  the 
tendencies  that  he  believed  most  typical  of  the  nation;  the  rest 
was  for  him  a  pseudo-literature.  Democracies  are  impatient  of 
forms,  therefore  the  writing  according  to  the  model  of  the 
English  classics  was  not  typical  of  democracies,  but  only  a 
temporary  phenomenon  in  American  literature.  Democracies 
are  above  all  anxious  to  express  themselves  with  particular 
concern  for  the  future;  therefore  those  American  writers  who 
chose  their  scenes  in  the  Europe  of  long  ago,  are  imitators  of 
British  writers  who  did  so,  and  not  typical  of  America.  It 
would  be  hard  to  contest  with  Tocqueville  his  position  that 
democracies  look  to  their  own  future  for  their  best  inspiration; 
nevertheless,  one  feels  that  he  disposes  too  summarily  of  the 
important  fact  that  past  European  history  made  a  very  strong 
appeal  to  the  writers  of  the  United  States.  It  might  plausibly 
be  maintained  that  democracy  is  an  impossibility,  that  men 
living  under  that  system  look  back  with  longing  to  an  age  when 
life  was  made  more  simple  by  an  iron-bound  division  into  castes, 


110      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

Tocqueville  does  not  think  —  enough  has 
already  been  said  to  make  this  evident  —  that 
this  tardy  progress  of  the  United  States  in 
literature  is  due  to  the  equality  that  was  some 
times  given  as  the  cause  why  Americans  did 
not  produce  more  in  that  way.  He  thinks  that 
those  who  maintain  this  are  only  confusing 
the  results  of  democracy  with  the  results  of  the 
conditions  that  are  characteristic  of  the  United 
States: 

Je  ne  puis  consentir  a  se*parer  TAm^rique  de 
1'Europe,  malgr£  P0ce*anx  qui  les  divise.  Je 
considere  le  peuple  des  Etats-Unis  comme  la 
portion  du  peuple  anglais  charge*e  d'exploiter 
les  forets  du  nouveau  monde;  tandis  que  le 
reste  de  la  nation,  pourvu  de  plus  de  loisirs  et 
moins  pre*occupe"  des  soins  mate>iels  de  la  vie, 
peut  se  livrer  &  la  pens6e  et  deVelopper  en  tous 
sens  Pesprit  humain.32 

This  seems  to  him  the  natural  solution,  under 
the  circumstances,  whereby  the  race  could  best 
work  along  the  two  paths  leading  to  intellectual 
progress  and  to  material  prosperity. 

But  the  very  fact  that  the  United  States  and 
England,  in  the  sense  especially  of  having  the 
same  language,  were  only  one  race  divided,  was 

and  that,  democracy  being  impossible  to  reconcile  with  content 
ment,  this  will  always  be  characteristic  of  democratic  litera 
tures.  .  .  .     Tocqueville  here  evidences  his  predilection  in  favor 
of  democracy,  possibly  drawing  unjust  conclusions. 
«  DA,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  60-1. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE       111 

an  important  reason  why  the  United  States 
should  be  little  occupied  with  literature.  The 
tradition  of  the  language  was  so  intimately 
identified  with  literary  tradition  that  it  was  most 
natural  that  the  trend  of  literature  should  be 
very  slowly  diverted  so  long  as  the  vehicle  in 
the  two  lands  remained  the  same.33 

Si  les  Americains,  tout  en  conservant  leur 
etat  social  et  leurs  lois,  avaient  une  autre  origine 
et  se  trouvaient  transporters  dans  un  autre  pays, 
je  ne  doute  point  qu'ils  n'eussent  une  litterature. 
Tels  qu'ils  sont,  je  suis  assure  qu'ils  finiront  par 
en  avoir  une. 

Tocqueville's  constant  comparison  of  the  effect 
of  the  democratic  form  of  government  upon  men, 
as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  aristocracy, 
would  naturally  incline  one  to  think  that  he 
puts  a  very  large  emphasis  upon  the  political 
conditions  as  an  influence  in  forming  men.  He 
does;  but  he  realizes  that  his  method  of  parallel- 
isni  might  lead  his  readers  to  the  opinion  that  he 
considered  that  one  influence  all-important.  It 
would  be  an  inexact  opinion,  he  says;  for 
although  he  has  almost  constantly  adduced 
this  as  explaining  conditions,  he  recognizes 
that  other  elements  come  into  play  as  well. 
However,  he  maintains  that  the  influence  of 
the  political  constitution  is  of  paramount  im 
portance.34 

33  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  94.  34  Ibid.,  p.  101. 


112      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

He  recognizes,  too,  the  impossibility  of  find 
ing  in  reality  a  democratic  state  or  an  aristo 
cratic  state;  or  even,  if  found,  conditions  are 
always  changing,  and  what  would  be  true  of  the 
United  States,  for  example,  in  one  generation, 
-  considering  that  as  the  democratic  state  in 
its  most  important  manifestation,  —  would  be 
otherwise  in  the  next.  In  fact,  the  progress 
from  an  aristocracy  to  a  democracy  is  slow  and 
made  by  steps  that  are  almost  imperceptible.85 

Dans  le  passage  qui  conduit  un  peuple  Iettr6 
de  Tun  (e*tat)  &  Tautre,  il  survient  presque 
tou  jours  un  moment  ou,  le  ge*nie  litte*raire  des 
nations  de*mocratiques  se  recontrant  avec  celui 
des  aristocraties,  tous  deux  semblent  vouloir 
regner  d'accord  sur  Tesprit  humain. 

Ce  sont  la  des  6poques  passag&res,  mais  tr£s 
brillantes:  on  a  alors  la  fecondit6  sans  exube*- 
rance,  et  le  mouvement  sans  confusion.  Telle 
fut  la  litterature  frangaise  du  dix-huitieme 


It  seems  from  the  above,  although  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  infer  it,  that  he  did  not  consider 

88  Here  is  as  good  an  example  as  any  in  proof  of  Tocqueville's 
conception  of  an  aristocracy  as  distinguished  from  a  democracy, 
and  that  has  already  been  referred  to.  (v.  p.  84)  Although  only 
by  inference  from  the  tone  of  the  following  passage,  it  is  a  sort 
of  proof,  as  well  —  if  particular  proofs  were  needed  when  the 
whole  "  Democratic"  may  be  considered  one  —  that  he  felt  that 
aristocracies  were  bound  to  become  democracies  sooner  or  later. 
For  the  passage  of  which  the  following  is  a  part,  v.  DA,  vol. 
Ill,  pp.  100-1. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      113 

the  typically  democratic  state  as  the  one  where 
literature  would  attain  its  most  complete 
development.  His  remarks  upon  the  poetry 
of  a  democracy,  that  have  been  cited,  where 
he  says  that  its  subjects  are  less  numerous, 
but  greater  or  more  comprehensive  ("plus 
vastes,"  v.  p.  98),  should  perhaps  be  taken  into 
consideration  here  to  temper  such  a  possible 
conclusion. 

The  excessive  tendency  toward  generaliza 
tion,  the  rapidity  and  consequent  carelessness 
of  construction,  the  contempt  for  form  and  for 
forms  that  Tocqueville  finds  typical  of  demo 
cratic  literatures  are  thus  to  be  corrected  by  the 
contrary  influence  that  he  found  evident  in 
eighteenth-century  French  literature. 

But  it  is  only  at  very  rare  intervals  that  such 
a  condition  of  mutually  corrective  influences  will 
be  found  naturally  to  occur.  In  a  democracy 

.  .  .  je  dois  m'attendre  a  ne  rencontrer  .  .  . 
qu'un  petit  nombre  de  .  .  .  conventions  rigou- 
reuses.  .  .  .  S'il  arrivait  que  les  hommes  d'une 
£poque  tombassent  d'accord  sur  quelques-unes, 
cela  ne  prouverait  rien  pour  1'epoque  suivante; 
car,  chez  les  nations  democratiques,  chaque 
generation  nouvelle  est  un  nouveau  peuple.36 

There  is,  to  his  mind,  an  important  corrective 
that  it  would  be  well  to  keep  constantly  in 
mind;  it  is  the  study  of  the  classical  literatures. 
36  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  98. 


114      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

For  if  those  writers  were  lacking  in  some  re 
spects,  they  were  in  others,  and  precisely  in 
those  that  American  authors  would  be  ex 
pected  to  understand  the  least,  most  excellent 
models. 

As  early  as  1827  the  question  of  the  advisa 
bility  of  classical  studies  for  a  particular  pur 
pose  in  the  United  States  had  been  raised  in 
France.  In  1827  Asher  Ware's  "  Discourse 
before  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society "  had  been 
published  in  Portland.  In  1830  it  found  its 
way  into  the  hands  of  a  French  reviewer.37 

Le  sujet  trait£  par  M.  Ware  est  celui-ci: 
l^tude  des  orateurs  de  la  Grece  et  de  Rome 
convient-elle  aux  citoyens  des  Etats-Unis?  Les 
r£publicains  modernes  du  Nouveau-Monde  trou- 
veront-ils  des  modules  dans  Cic6ron  et  D6mos- 
th£ne? 

The  reviewer  feels  that  political  conviction 
should  furnish  sufficient  guidance  to  the  Ameri 
can  orator,  and  he  continues: 

Dans  les  temps  ordinaires,  Tart  oratoire  est 
fort  inutile  a  une  r^publique;  il  ne  doit  y  etre 
question  que  de  bons  raisonnements.  .  .  . 

It  would  be  difficult  to  show  that  eloquence 
has  not  in  fact  given  place  in  some  degree  to 
exposition.  But  the  passage  was  not  cited  here 

37  "Revue  encyclop&lique,"  vol.  XLV  (1830),  p.  645.  Re 
view  signed  "N." 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      115 

to  be  defended  or  disproved.  It  is  only  intended 
to  show  the  difference  between  what  has  the 
ring  of  a  popular  idea  and  Tocqueville's  rather 
more  observant  conclusion.  For  him  a  democ 
racy  would  have  defects  as  well  as  virtues;  the 
reviewer  of  1830  seems  to  feel,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  consciousness  of  freedom  —  and,  we 
may  suppose,  the  reasonableness  and  the  dignity 
of  that  condition  —  would  of  itself  dictate 
irrefutable  arguments.  This  is  the  idealism 
of  inexperience.  Tocqueville's  language  upon 
this  matter  —  it  will  be  the  last  citation  here — 
is  worth  giving:38 

...  si  les  ecrivains  y  (in  antiquity)  ont  quel- 
quefois  manque  de  variete  et  de  fecondite  dans 
les  sujets,  de  hardiesse,  de  mouvement  et  de 
generalisation  dans  la  pensee,  ils  ont  toujours 
fait  voir  un  art  et  un  soin  admirables  dans  les 
details;  .  .  .  tout  y  est  ecrit  pour  les  connais- 
seurs,  et  la  recherche  de  la  beaute  ideale  s'y 
moritre  sans  cesse.  .  .  . 

Le  grec  et  le  latin  ne  doivent  pas  etre  enseignes 
dans  toutes  les  ecoles;  mais  il  importe  que  ceux 
que  leur  naturel  ou  leur  fortune  destine  a  cultiver 
les  lettres  ou  predispose  a  les  gouter  trouvent  des 
ecoles  ou  Ton  puisse  se  rendre  parfaitement 
maitre  de  la  litterature  antique  et  de  se  penetrer 
de  son  esprit.  .  .  .  Ce  n'est  pas  que  je  considere 
les  productions  litteraires  des  anciens  comme 
irreprochables.  .  .  .  Elles  nous  soutiennent  par 
le  bord  ou  nous  penchons. 

38  DA,  vol.  Ill,  p.  105. 


116      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

"Par  le  bord  oft  nous  penchons."  ...  It  is 
impossible  to  forget  that  Tocqueville  was  speak 
ing  of  democracies  as  he  understood  the  term, 
and  not  of  America  merely.  Indeed,  giving  as 
he  does  the  impression  that  he  felt  the  modern 
world  —  at  least  France,  specifically,  among  the 
nations  of  Europe  —  to  be  gradually  progres 
sing  in  the  direction  of  democratic  institutions, 
it  is  sometimes  naturally  deduced  that  his 
treatment  of  literature  might  be  intended  to 
apply  to  nineteenth  century  literature  in 
general. 

No  matter:  for  whatever  his  real  aim,  he 
was  manifestly  interested  in  the  United  States 
as  the  particular  basis  for  the  most  of  his  data; 
and  it  was  doubtless  for  the  sake  of  understand 
ing  the  United  States  that  the  greater  number 
of  his  readers  took  up  the  work.  And,  making 
all  allowance  for  Madame  de  Tocqueville's 
suspicion  of  the  minor  popularity  of  the  second 
part,  which  has  been  the  subject  of  the  present 
study,  still  it  is  certain  that  no  other  work 
dealing  with  American  literature  has  had  such 
circulation  in  France.  And,  admitting  here 
and  applying  the  thesis  of  Tocqueville  that 
in  democracies  (if  not  everywhere)  there  is  the 
love  of  generalization,  of  arriving  immediately, 
without  verification  through  careful  detailed 
study,  at  certain  broad  and  therefore  always 
handy  opinions,  one  may  suppose  that  his  book 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      117 

served  more  than  any  other  criticism — I  should 
be  tempted  to  say,  more  than  the  reading  of 
American  works  themselves  —  to  form  French 
opinion  about  American  letters.  Whether  it  did 
or  not,  may  perhaps  appear  to  some  degree  in 
the  pages  to  follow. 


V 

PHILARETE  CHASLES 

THE  year  that  saw  the  publication  of  the 
first  part  of  Tocqueville's  "Democratic  en 
Ame'rique"  produced  another  work,  shorter  and 
of  another  order  of  merit,  but  more  closely 
related  than  Tocqueville's  considerations  upon 
the  political  aspects  of  democracy  to  the  sub 
ject  in  hand  —  to  literature.  The  work  re 
ferred  to  is  Philarete  Chasles'  article  in  the 
"Revue  des  deux  Mondes."1  "De  la  Litte*ra- 
ture  dans  l'Ame*rique  du  Nord,"  an  essay  that 
was  to  be  followed  very  frequently  by  others 
upon  the  same  subject  during  practically  the 
whole  life  of  the  author.  His  last  work,  "De  la 
Psychologic  sociale  des  nouveaux  peuples,"  was 
published  in  1875,  two  years  after  his  death. 

It  would  be  unfair  to  both,  and  it  is  unneces 
sary,  to  compare  Chasles  with  Tocqueville. 
And  indeed  it  is  of  only  incidental  concern 
here  to  determine  their  relative  permanent 
worth;  what  is  more  immediately  important 
is  to  learn  their  influence  in  directing  contem 
porary  thought  upon  American  literature.  And 

1  4e  s4rie,  vol.  3,  1835,  pp.  169-202. 
118 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      119 

it  may  be  said  at  once  that  the  question  is  one 
of  the  most  complicated,  and,  on  account  of 
lack  of  documents,  not  possible  to  determine 
fully.  Such  questions  are  never  very  tangible, 
but  in  this  case  what  appears  a  surprising  lack 
of  criticism  upon  Tocqueville,  and  the  fact  that 
Chasles'  work  generally  appeared  in  reviews,  is 
a  circumstance  that  leaves  the  matter  insoluble 
except  in  connection  with  a  general  outline  of 
what  afterward  developed  in  this  particular  field 
of  criticism. 

In  this  study  Tocqueville  was  considered 
before  Chasles;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  so  far 
as  special  consideration  of  literature  is  con 
cerned,  Chasles  preceded  Tocqueville,  since 
the  study  in  the  "  Revue  des  deux  Mondes"  is 
of  1835,  and  the  second  part  of  the  "Democratic 
en  Amerique" — that  containing  the  chapters 
on  the  intellectual  life  —  did  not  appear  until 
1840.  But  Tocqueville  lives  as  the  author  of 
the  "Democratic  en  Am£rique,"  and  Chasles 
as  a  general  literary  critic  whose  activity  con 
tinued  for  a  quarter-century  after  Tocqueville's 
masterpiece  was  concluded. 

Although,  as  was  mentioned,  the  two  writers 
are  unlike,  and  not  to  be  judged  by  the  same 
criteria;  although  the  close,  logical  trend  of 
Tocqueville's  deductions,  founded  upon  an 
understanding  of  principles  that  seems  some 
times  like  instinct;  although  his  restrained 


120      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

manner  —  all  contrast  strongly  with  Chasles' 
exuberance  and  somewhat  hasarded  conclusions, 
still  there  is  often  in  Chasles  a  kind  of  enthu 
siasm  in  the  logical  handling  of  his  material  that 
makes  one  feel  that,  as  in  the  case  of  Tocque- 
ville,  it  is  not  mere  knowledge,  but  rather  the 
interpretation  of  facts,  that  he  feels  to  be  the 
chief  end  in  literary  studies.2 

Facts,  however,  for  Tocqueville,  were  generali 
zations,  from  which  he  deduced,  by  applying 
his  conception  of  the  action  of  the  democratic 
principle,  still  other  generalizations;  facts  are 
in  no  case  —  or  rarely  —  separately  considered. 
Chasles,  on  the  contrary,  is  not  only  well  in 
formed  upon  matters  of  detail,  —  he  is  said, 
during  a  stay  in  England,  to  have  acquired  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  English,  —  but  he  uses 
these  particulars  of  information  constantly. 
The  distinction  between  Tocqueville  and  Chasles 
is  thus,  after  all,  fundamental;  "La  Democratic 
en  Am6rique"  bears  much  the  relation  to 
Chasles'  studies  that  the  abstract  does  to  the 

2  Gabriel  Monod,  writing  of  Albert  Sorel  in  the  "Revue 
historique,"  in  1906  (vol.  94,  sept.-dSc.,  p.  91),  says:  "Albert 
Sorel  e"tait  le  dernier  des  grands  historiens  ge'ne'ralisateurs, 
narrateurs,  peintres  et  psychologues  du  XIXe  siecle.  II  elait 
de  la  ligne*e  d'Augustin  Thierry,  Thiers,  Mignet,  Michelet, 
Guizot,  Tocqueville,  Renan,  Taine,  Fustel  de  Coulanges.  ..." 
Chasles  was  certainly  of  the  same  school,  if  one  school  can  be 
conceived  to  contain  writers  as  diverse  as  Thierry,  Renan,  and 
Tocqueville. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      121 

concrete;  the  methods  of  dealing  with  these 
two  categories  will  be  different,  the  first  being 
that  of  exposition,  and  logical,  and  the  second 
descriptive. 

Chasles,  like  his  contemporary  J-J  Ampere, 
was  a  free  lance  in  criticism;  his  curiosity  ranged 
from  antiquity  down,  through  all  the  great  lit 
eratures  of  Europe,  with  excursions  from  time 
to  time  into  philology,  into  historical  erudition. 
So  great  versatility,  creeping  into  his  judgments, 
gives  them  a  certain  balance  and  power  that  — 
at  least  in  studies  upon  American  literature  —  it 
seems  no  literary  critic  closely  restricting  him 
self  could  attain;  on  the  other  hand  it  implies 
a  rapidity  of  workmanship  that  will  frequently 
leave  but  a  crumbling  structure.  Sainte-Beuve 
speaks  of  him  as  a  "  critique  erudit"3  and  in 
his  study  upon  Loeve-Veimars 4  he  gives  the 
following  estimate  of  him: 

.  .  .  C'est  la  tout  un  cote  de  la  critique  actu- 
elle,  de  la  mauvaise  critique;  mais  hors  de 
celle-la,  en  face  ou  pele-mele,  il  y  a  la  bonne,  il 
y  a  celle  des  esprits  justes,  fins,  peu  enthousi- 
astes,  nourris  d'etudes  comparees,  doues  de 
plus  ou  moins  de  verve  ou  d'ame,  et  consentant 
a  ecrire  leurs  judgments  a  peu  pres  dans  la 

3  "Portraits  contemp.,"  vol.  II,  p.  250  (Calmann-LeVy),  in 
connection  with  Jules  Lefevre. 

4  "Prem.  lundis,"  vol.  II,  pp.  202-3  (nouvelle  Edition  Cal- 
mann-LeVy). 


122      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

mesure  ou  ils  les  sentent.  Cette  espece  de 
critique  est  le  refuge  de  quelques  hommes  dis- 
tingue"s  qui  ne  se  croient  pas  de  grands  hommes, 
comme  c'est  trop  1'usage  de  chaque  commengant 
aujourd'hui;  qui  ne  me*connaissent  pas  leur 
e*poque,  sans  pour  cela  Tadorer;  qui,  en  se 
permettant  eux-memes  des  essais  d'art,  de 
courtes  et  vives  inventions,  ne  s'en  exagerent 
pas  la  porte*e.  .  .  .  Parmi  les  hommes  assez 
rares  de  cette  nature,  nous  ne  pouvons  pas  ne 
pas  mentionner  M.  Chasles.  .  .  . 

As  far  back  as  1819  Chasles  had  begun  to 
write  in  English,5  and  in  1823  there  was  pub 
lished  a  collection  of  studies  upon  contemporary 
English  poets  that  had  appeared  in  the  "  Revue 
ency  elope*  dique,"  and  that  bore  the  title  "Coup 
d'ceil  sur  les  pofrtes  anglais  vivants." 

We  can  attribute  it  to  what  we  will,  to  this 
good  foundation  for  a  real  appreciation  of  the 
bearing  of  English  literature  upon  American, 
or  to  a  conviction  that  may  have  forced  itself 
upon  him  —  as  we  can  only  wonder  that  it  had 
not  already  forced  itself  more  generally  than 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  upon  French 
critics  —  that  identity  of  language  makes  for 
identity,  or  similarity,  of  sympathy,  in  litera 
ture  as  well  as  elsewhere;  in  any  case,  in  the 

6  A  convenient  bibliography  of  Chasles'  writings  published 
in  book  form  is  to  be  found  in  Thieme:  "Guide  bibliographique 
de  la  literature  frangaise  de  1800  a  1906."  (Paris,  Welter, 
1907.) 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      123 

article  in  the  "  Revue  des  deux  Mondes"  of 
1835,  he  says  that  "  twenty  wars  of  indepen 
dence  would  not  keep  the  United  States  from 
remaining  English  and  Puritan/'  6  And  he 
goes  on,  insisting  that  the  United  States  have 
had  no  literature  that  was  not  English,  —  lit 
erature,  that  is,  of  excellence:  Cooper  follows 
Scott,  Irving  copies  Addison.  The  fact  has 
frequently,  if  not  always,  been  recognized;  but 
the  difference  between  Chasles  and  those  who 
had  written  before  him  lies  in  the  acceptance 
of  the  fact,  which  he  considers  an  inevitable 
result  of  circumstances,  not  to  be  combated,, 
since  the  causes  cannot  be  changed. 

But  there  is  another  reason  why  the  United 
States  had,  so  far,  no  national  literature; 
he  maintains  —  and  this  in  spite  of  all  the 
fine  theorizing  about  forests,  boundless  plains,, 
democracy  —  he  maintains,  that  "the  United 
States  are  not  a  society !"  Their  original  popu 
lation  was  a  band  of  people  seeking  freedom  of 
faith;  but  bands  of  adventurers  came  likewise,, 
seeking  other  freedom.  The  original  popula 
tion  of  the  land  disappeared,  leaving  a  conglom 
eration  of  the  most  various  elements.  And  the 
indigenous  character  disappearing,  nothing  that 
could  be  said  to  constitute  a  unity  among  the 
whole  body  of  the  new  inhabitants  came  into 

6  "Rev.  des  deux  Mondes,"  1835,  4e  se>ie,  vol.  Ill,  p.  169. 


124      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

existence  to  supply  the  place  of  what  had  been 
lost. 

D'abord  les  indigenes  s'an^antissent,  et  avec 
eux  cet  ordre  particulier  d'id^es  et  de  sen 
timents,  qui  nait  de  I'affimte*  d'une  classe 
d'hommes  avec  un  sol  et  un  climat,  et  imprime 
aux  mceurs,  aux  lois,  a  la  parole,  un  caractere 
ineffagable.  .  .  .  Les  sauvages  fuyant  de  foret 
en  foret  charge's  des  os  de  leurs  peres  et  disant 
adieu  &  leur  sol  ...  emportent  avec  eux  la 
poesie  ame*ricaine  ...  et  ...  les  bticherons,  les 
serruriers,  les  menuisiers,  qui  vont  leur  succ6der, 
n'auront  aucune  inspiration  a  transmettre  aux 
generations  futures. 

The  passage  seems  worth  citing,  since  it  rep 
resents  both  the  power  and  the  weakness  of 
Chasles'  criticism.  We  have  frequently  met  this 
idea  of  American  poetry  being,  as  the  product 
of  the  American  soil,  the  particular  character 
istic  of  the  Indians.  But  heretofore  the  writers 
upon  the  subject  had  not  taken  the  pains  to 
distinguish  between  a  character,  a  sentiment, 
and  its  expression.  And  the  sentiment,  after 
all,  was  the  personal  one,  the  sentiment  of 
the  European; — we  may  even  say,  at  that,  the 
sentiment  of  the  European  of  Europe  rather 
than  of  the  European  of  America,  who  had 
doubtless  too  many  recollections,  in  the  eigh 
teenth  and  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  cen 
tury,  of  the  harrowing  details  of  conquest  and 
defeat  to  feel  that  detached  sympathy  —  I 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      125 

mean  the  distance  that  permits  of  idealization 
—  necessary  to  a  complete  poetic  expression 
of  the  American  Land. 

Lo,  the  poor  Indian!  whose  untutor'd  mind 
Sees  God  in  clouds,  or  hears  him  in  the 
wind: . .  . 

That  was  what  the   Indian   amounted  to  in 
the  mind  of  Pope  safely  ensconced  in  England, 
that  was  about  what  the  "good  savage "  of  a 
later  French  generation  was  going  to  be  made 
to  appear.    It  may  be  poetry  or  not,  according 
to  whether  a  poet  or  a  poetaster  deals  with  the 
idea;  —  but  it  is  certain  that  there  is  one  thing 
it  is  not:  it  is  not  the  expression  of  the  new 
America.    And  there  Chasles  distinguishes  him 
self  from  his  predecessors:  he  does  not  expect, 
he  does  not  claim  to  suppose,  that  some  magic 
in  the  air  of  the  New  World  was  going  to  change 
every  stern  Puritan  and  every  greedy  adven 
turer  into  a  new  and  strange  sort  of  poet.    His 
love  of  brilliant   conclusions  however,   of  the 
general,  in  which  he  resembles,  without  equal 
ling  Tocqueville,  leads  him  into  an  unhappy 
characterization   of  the   American   population: 
he  seems  to  imply,  and  we  shall  find  the  same 
idea  frequently  in  him,  that  all  in  the  United 
States  that  was  not  Puritan  was  industrial  or 
commercial.    The  population  might,  indeed,  be 
both  the  one  and  the  other,  but  the  general 


126      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

trend  of  his  argument  would  go  to  show  that 
he  felt  there  were  no  other  prevalent  ideals. 
It  will  readily  become  evident  that  here  is  a  far 
cry  from  that  older  conception  that  American 
poetry  might  be  considered  the  daughter  of 
liberty.  Apropos,  what  has  remained  the  key 
note  of  the  American  spirit:  the  democratic  or 
the  commercial  ideal,  so  far  as  the  two  are 
separable? 

But  Puritanism,  for  Chasles,  was  not,  in  the 
numerous  manifestations  of  the  protestant  sects, 
analagous  to  Catholicism  in  its  influence  upon 
the  nation  that  had  adopted  it. 

Quand  les  hommes  croient  comme  un  seul 
homme,  ce  magnifique  concert  ach£ve  de  les 
rendre  fr£res  .  .  .  et  si  quelque  ame,  marquee 
secretement  de  ce  sacerdoce  qu'on  nomme  po6sie, 
vient  a  entendre  ce  grand  murmure  d'un  peuple 
qui  cause  avec  Dieu,  elle  chante  alors  .  .  .  elle 
laisse  a  son  siecle  et  a  tous  les  siecles  un  chef- 
d'oeuvre  national. 

Le  protestantisme  am£ricain  £tait  autre 
chose.  .  .  .  Les  croyances  £parpille*es  r^duisai- 
ent  a  rien  les  hautes  sympathies,  sans  lesquelles 
la  po£sie  est  impossible.  Le  po&te  est  par 
essence  Thomme  de  tous,  et  quand  tous  sont 
isole"s,  que  devient  sa  mission? 

L'Am6rique  ne  pouvait  done  avoir  son  po6te, 
elle  n'avait  point  une  nation  a  lui  donner,  ni 
un  culte,  ni  une  patrie;  elle  ne  pre*sentait  & 
son  esprit  nulle  grande  et  mysterieuse  unite", 
qu'il  embrassat  sans  effort  et  avec  laquelle  il 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      127 

melat  son  individuality  propre;  la  socie*te  ameri- 
caine  n'etait  pas  nee,  elle  ne  Test  pas  encore. 

Or,  qui  n'a  point  de  poe*sie  nationale,  ne  peut 
avoir  de  litter ature  nationale.  La  poesie  est  a 
la  litterature  ce  que  1'accent  est  a  la  parole, 
Tame  au  corps,  et  Dieu  a  Tame.  .  .  . 

Probably  there  is  little  that  is  very  sound  in 
all  this,  but  much  that  is  true,  if  only  as  a  cor 
rective  to  what  we  have  seen;  —  and  finally, 
there  is  abounding  charm  and  beauty  in  his 
phrases.  And  is  this  charm,  is  this  beauty,  of 
small  importance  in  a  consideration  of  the 
French  criticism  of  American  literature?  There 
had  been  relatively  little  good  writing  upon  the 
subject  heretofore  in  France  —  and  when  those 
characteristics  are  uniformly  lacking  in  a  body 
of  French  prose,  one  may  justly  feel  that  the 
matter  must  indeed  be  of  very  small  importance 
in  that  nation,  where  prose  is  so  uniformly 
charming.  Its  presence  indicates  an  interest 
sufficient  to  induce  men  of  merit  enough  to 
make  themselves  heard  upon  questions  presum 
ably  more  immediately  important  to  the  French 
public,  to  devote  their  attention  to  these  studies. 
But,  although  Puritanism  divided  into  many 
forms  mutually  unsympathetic,  it  nevertheless 
remained,  by  the  spirit  of  restraint  that  char 
acterized  it,  a  most  powerful  influence  in  Ameri 
can  thought.  It  hindered  the  poetic  expression, 
but  it  fostered  a  spirit  of  practicality,  a  sort  of 


128      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

prosaic  genius,  it  seems  Chasles  had  in  mind, 
as  the  opposite  of  inspiration.  And  he  cites 
Franklin  and  Washington  as  the  types  of  this 
sort  of  mind.  "De  tels  modules,  he  says,  feront 
d'excellents  citoyens,  jamais  des  artistes." 

It  was  not  protestantism,  as  Chasles  under 
stood  the  word  in  1835  —  it  was  not  protestant 
ism  alone  that  favored  the  practical  and  the 
prosaic  in  the  United  States.  He  does  not  con 
fuse  the  American  democracy  with  those  of  an 
tiquity,  as  had  always  been  so  readily  done  — 
not  in  France  only. 

On  ne  peut  comparer  cet  essai  ph6nom6nal, 
les  Etats-Unis,  aux  r^publiques  anciennes,  san- 
glantes  aristocraties  port£es  sur  leur  char  de 
triomphe  par  des  foules  de  bip£des  rampants. 
Ici,  pour  la  premiere  fois,  les  masses  domi- 
nent.  .  .  .  Veut-on  un  success?  il  faut  le  leur 
demander.  .  .  . 

The  mind,  to  be  heard,  must  be  the  practical 
mind;  and  ridicule  will  be  the  reward  of  him 
who  gives  his  attention  to  poetry.  Perfection 
in  workmanship,  originality,  forms,  all  these  are 
of  no  import;  the  democratic  mind,  so  far  as 
literature  is  concerned,  will  try  to  produce  the 
popular  sort;  and  the  popular  literature  is  the 
literature  of  periodicals,  and  especially  of  daily 
papers;  neither  is  it  those  of  a  high  character: 
it  is  a  fawning,  blackguard  press  that  Chasles 
has  in  mind:  "elle  prendra  les  vices  des  laquais, 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE       129 

he  says:  elle  sera  menteuse,  calomniatrice,  adu- 
latrice,  et  pillarde;  elle  ne  sera  plus  que  la  ser- 
vante  salariee  du  bien-etre  materiel." 

But  at  its  best,  that  is,  even  when  upright, 
these  beginnings  of  American  literature  remain 
prosaic.  Chasles  accords  to  Franklin  certain 
literary  qualities;  but  Franklin,  unfortunately 
for  his  renown  among  Chasles'  readers,  "a  rime 
quelques  vers  .  .  .  qui  peuvent  se  classer,  pour 
la  force  poetique,  tout  aupres  des  '  Quatrains  du 
sieur  de  Pybrac.'"  Which  is  as  good  as  saying 
that  Chasles,  for  one,  had  not  been  deeply 
affected  by  Franklin's  efforts  in  that  direction. 

But  there  are  circumstances  in  the  life  of 
Americans  that  should  make  for  poetic  expres 
sion:  religious  " revivals,"  he  says  "sont  terribles 
et  grandioses,"  and  the  descendants  of  the 
generation  of  1835  would  recognize  the  poetry 
in  such  manifestations.  The  hard  existence  of 
the  farmer,  the  bloody  struggles  of  the  hunter 
and  the  savage,  these  are  the  real  source  of 
American  native  poetry,  and  will  one  day  be 
recognized  as  such;  but  now,  again,  civilized 
America  despises  such  themes.  So  much  for 
the  future,  when,  we  may  infer,  although  it  is 
not  clearly  stated  that  this  is  exactly  Chasles7 
thought,  so  much  for  the  day  when  the  distance 
of  time  separating  the  event  from  its  poetic 
expression  will  give  room  for  the  proper,  or  at 
any  rate  the  necessary,  idealization. 


130      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

For  the  present,  there  is  too  little  hardship  in 
the  United  States  of  that  hopeless,  inactive 
nature  that  breeds  a  spirit  of  melancholy  or  of 
revolt,  and  makes  for  poetry;  too  few,  if  any, 
of  those  great  national  disappointments  that 
make  the  noble  idealist  seek  a  refuge  in  the 
solitude  of  his  own  heart. 

Not,  however,  that  there  are  not  plenty  of 
poets.  He  mentions  Hopkins,  Dwight,  Barlow, 
Humphreys,  Trumbull,  Freneau,  Servell,  Linn, 
Lathrop,  Prentiss,  Boyd,  Clifton,  Isaac  Story, 
Allen  Osborne,  Spence,  Braynard  .  .  .  "en  effet," 
he  says,  "voila  beaucoup  de  gens  qui  font  des 
vers."  The  most  of  them  imitate  Hemans, 
whose  voice,  "timid  and  sweet,"  chimes  well 
with  the  scrupulous  morality  of  modern 
Americans. 

He  finds  a  few  names,  however,  that  merit  a 
certain  praise:  P.  M.  Wetmore,  Samuel  Wood- 
worth,  John  Neal,  James  Nack,  Edward  Pinck- 
ney,  Braynard,  George  Washington  Doane, 
Longfellow,  N.  P.  Willis,  Sprague,  John  Pier- 
pont,  Lydia  Sigourney,  "la  seconde  mistress 
Hemans,"  Rodman  Drake,  Fitz-Greene  Halleck. 
But  he  makes  the  remark,  doubtless  quite  exact, 
that  poetry  is  not  a  profession  in  the  United 
States;  after  each  of  the  above  names,  he  gives 
the  profession  or  business  of  the  writer,  and 
frequently  enough  he  finds  occasion  to  remark 
upon  their  material  prosperity,  —  the  inference 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      131 

being,  that  poetry  is  here  the  diversion  of  dilet 
tanti,  and  not  the  cry  of  the  soul  that  demands 
expression  in  the  face  of  all  hardship:  conse 
quently,  that  it  is  neither  original  nor  profound. 
And  indeed,  he  says  almost  as  much:  "en 
general,  tous  ces  poetes  se  ressemblent,  1'indi- 
vidualite  leur  manque/' 

There  is  a  third  category  of  American  poets, 
a  very  small  one  of  three  members,  that  he 
places  above  the  poetasters  and  above  the 
poets  who  appear  to  him  to  lack  the  conviction 
that  for  us,  as  well  as  for  him,  is  the  soul  of  and 
the  excuse  for  poetry. 

Trois  poetes,  Bryant,  Percival  et  Dana  sont 
dignes  d'etre  mentionnes.  Le  sentiment  moral 
est  profond  et  chaste  chez  Bryant.  .  .  .  James 
G.  Percival,  avec  plus  d'inegalites,  a  peut-etre 
plus  de  genie  .  .  .  quelques-uns  des  morceaux 
sortis  de  sa  plume  annoncent  qu'il  se  serait 
eleve  jusqu'a  la  passion,  si  la  passion  pouvait 
fleurir  en  Amerique.  Enfin,  George  Dana  .  .  . 
s'est  habilement  mode!6  sur  le  type  de  Words 
worth.  .  .  . 

But  with  all  that,  American  literature  is 
empty:  and  Chasles  formulates  the  error  of 
the  American  writers.  They  have  made  the 
fundamental  mistake  of  taking  "words  for 
ideas,  and  forms  for  feeling."  Everywhere  in 
American  poetry  one  finds  the  echo  of  some 
image  or  of  some  sentiment  that  is  essentially 


132      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

European:  the  lark  sings  for  American  poets, 
but  "  unfortunately  the  lark  does  not  sing  in 
America. " 

Une  teinte  pale  et  morne  se  re*pand  sur  la 
poesie.  Sa  douce  monotonie  fatigue  1'oreille,  sa 
langueur  inanime*e  assoupit  Tame  en  la  bergant 
de  pense*es  plus  communes  que  m61ancoliques. 
Chaque  vers  semble  un  e*cho  affaibli  de  quelque 
poesie  e*trangere,  chaque  ide*e,  un  souvenir 
emprunte*  a  la  vieille  Europe. 

So  much  for  poetry  in  the  United  States.  It 
would  appear  that  historiography  might  have 
had  a  better  fate  in  a  land  whose  traditions  were 
political,  and  which  had  as  its  particular  dis 
tinction  in  the  eyes  of  other  nations  its  form 
of  government.  So  it  would  appear  to  Chasles, 
as  well.  But  in  1835  he  does  not  find  that  the 
results  had  met  these  legitimate  expectations. 
And  he  attributes  the  cause  of  this  failure  to 
the  "  spirit  of  mercantile  exactness. "  One  may 
say,  in  passing,  that  this  is  rather  a  new  theory 
of  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  "  German " 
research,  when  we  speak  of  that  which  is  done 
without  regard  to  its  significance  in  relation  to 
other  things  —  the  cult  of  careful  method,  the 
art  for  art's  sake,  as  it  were,  of  research.  Pos 
sibly  there  is  inexactness  here  —  of  the  sort 
that  was  rather  typical  of  Chasles,  with  all  his 
good  points,  when  he  saw  the  chance  to  draw  an 
apt  conclusion.  Commercial  exactness,  that 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE       133 

was  exactly  what  one  would  desire  to  find  in 
almost  anything  American,  but  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  has  the  interest  in  knowledge  for  its  own 
sake,  apart  from  its  philosophical  import,  ever 
had  anything  particularly  in  common  with 
commercialism:  from  the  mediaeval  annalists 
to  the  modern  methodologists  in  research  — 
through  all  the  forms  and  shades  that  erudition 
has  taken  on,  is  there  anything  in  common 
between  this  ideal  of  knowledge  and  the  strict 
accountancy,  apart  from  any  shade  of  an  ideal 
whatsoever,  that  is  governed  by  commercial 
necessity?  And  even  if  research  is  frequently 
nothing  but  the  evidence  of  a  curiosity  for  facts, 
still  that  too  has  nothing  in  common  with  com 
mercialism.  The  trait  so  general  among  French 
critics  of  our  literature  —  not  to  go  out  of  the 
realm  of  the  matter  being  considered  here  — 
one  may  say  the  mania,  almost,  for  apt  generali 
zations,  for  conclusions  that  seem  plausible,  is 
thus  as  typical  of  Chasles  as  of  those  many 
others  far  less  informed  than  he  certainly  was 
about  the  United  States  and  things  American. 

He  particularly  mentions  Jared  Sparks  and 
Bancroft,  not,  indeed,  as  being  upon  the  same 
plane,  for  he  considers  Bancroft  superior  both 
on  account  of  his  great  erudition  and  on  account 
of  his  care  in  research.  Sparks  is  a  clear  writer, 
and  painstaking  in  his  investigations.  But  in 
the  case  of  neither  is  there  any  movement,  any 


134      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

unity  in  the  details  that  goes  to  build  up  a  real 
structure  with  a  meaning.  And  he  does  not 
neglect  to  complain  of  their  weakness  of  phrase, 
their  lack  of  color  and  life.  "Toujours  une  main 
incertaine,  tremblante;  une  forme  lache*e,  molle, 
et  prolixe;  toujours  des  documents  pour  Phis- 
toire,  jamais  d'histoire." 

In  Europe,  three  American  writers  are  par 
ticularly  well  known :  Irving,  Cooper,  and  Chan- 
ning,  of  whom  he  speaks  but  briefly,  since  public 
opinion  in  France  had  long  since  decided  upon 
the  place  these  writers  were  to  occupy  there. 
"It  would  be  unjust,  he  adds,  not  to  add  to  their 
number  Jonathan  Edwards,  a  metaphysician  of 
the  Scotch  school."  The  phrase  is  of  doubtful 
meaning,  in  this  connection;  probably  Chasles 
felt  merely  that  Jonathan  Edwards  merited  a 
more  general  recognition. 

But  it  is  Irving  and  Cooper  who  really  rep 
resent —  to  France,  to  Europe,  he  says  —  the 
intellectual  life  of  the  United  States.  The  Eng 
lish  include  two  other  writers,  Charles  Brockden 
Brown  and  Miss  Sedgwick,  the  author  of  "Hope 
Leslie. "  We  have  seen  that  both  these  writers 
were  also  known  in  France,  but  to  a  relatively 
slight  degree.  Cooper  is,  however,  after  all,  the 
only  author  of  American  life:  "Seul,  et  que  cet 
honneur  lui  soit  rendu,  il  a  su  choisir  le  cote* 
saisissant  de  la  vie  am£ricaine." 

It  seems,  then,  that  he  considered  the  novel, 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE       135 

so  far  as  there  was  any  real  expression  of  America 
in  American  literature,  to  be  that  form  that  con 
tained  the  greatest  portion  of  the  native  char 
acter.  Paulding's  "  Dutchman's  Fireside  "  gives, 
to  an  even  greater  degree  than  Irving's  works  of 
American  life  had  done,  a  convincing  picture  of 
the  American  home,  to  the  formation  of  which 
he  considers  Scotland  and  Holland  —  countries 
where  the  domestic  virtues  are  a  more  than 
usually  important  trait  of  national  character 
-  to  have  contributed  in  a  very  great  degree. 
The  idea  of  the  expression  of  America  in 
American  literature  was  mentioned:  Chasles 
considers  that  this  expression  of  America  is 
found  not  alone  in  American  literature  —  per 
haps  above  all  not  in  American  literature. 
He  characterizes  the  American  as  a  a  half- 
civilization. n  Granted  the  premise,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  see  where  he  would  go  to  seek  the 
expression  of  it:  in  Audubon,  in  whose  great 
work  upon  American  birds  the  forests  live  again, 
in  Chateaubriand,  in  Campbell's  "  Gertrude  of 
Wyoming."  ...  Is  it  necessary  to  insist?  Was 
not  America  the  land  of  the  European  immigrant 
or  of  his  descendants,  —  is  not  the  expression  of 
the  social  life  of  a  people  more  likely  to  be  its 
true  literature  than  the  expression  of  a  volun 
tary  denaturization  of  that  life  to  fit  some  pre 
conception  of  it  is  likely  to  be?  The  French 
were  seeking  what  they  desired  should  exist  in 


136      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

American  literature;  finding  the  facts  contrary 
to  their  expectation,  they  were  willing  to  accept 
the  interpretation  of  Frenchmen,  of  Englishmen, 
and  of  American  naturalists. 

It  might  be  a  study  worth  while  making  in 
this  connection,  to  try  to  determine  in  some 
measure  what  the  effects  of  environment  upon 
literary  expression  might  be  shown  to  be- 
provided  anything  at  all  conclusive  could  be 
advanced  upon  the  general  principles  governing 
such  development.  It  would  seem,  at  any  rate, 
that  Chasles  was  right  in  his  remark  about  the 
"  particular  order  of  ideas  and  of  sentiments 
that  is  born  of  the  affinity  of  a  class  of  men 
with  a  soil  and  a  climate,  and  that  stamps  upon 
customs,  laws,  and  speech  an  indelible  char 
acter.  "  The  Russian  literature,  for  example, 
which,  in  its  affiliation  with  the  forms  of  Europe, 
is,  after  all,  hardly  older  than  the  American,  is 
nevertheless  formed,  and  was  so  at  the  epoch 
at  which  Chasles  was  writing;  and  why,  if  not 
because  of  the  very  relationship  of  a  race  with 
a  soil,  of  which  he  speaks?  A  relationship 
which,  however,  had  existed  for  centuries,  and 
ended  at  last  the  slow  process  of  the  formation 
of  the  national  soul  —  the  word  is  as  good  as 
another.  ...  Or  if  it  did  not  end,  for  such 
processes  do  not  end,  it  had  at  least  arrived  at 
the  point  where  the  race  might  be  said  to  have 
distinct  positive  mental  characteristics.  The 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      137 

American  literature  showed,  relatively  to  others, 
as  the  French  were  doubtless  right  in  maintain 
ing,  rather  negative  characteristics  —  and  the 
most  striking,  that  of  imitation.  And  the 
strange  fact  in  this  criticism  of  Chasles  is  that, 
realizing  keenly  as  he  did  the  importance  of 
these  facts,  realizing,  surely,  that  racial,  or 
national  characteristics  are  not  formed  in  a  few 
years  after  the  new  inhabitants  people  the  land, 
but  only  after  a  much  longer  period,  perhaps 
many  centuries,  —  that  he  should  have  expected 
a  national  expression  in  the  sense  of  those  of 
the  European  nations.  What  he  expected,  what 
he  was  looking  for,  could  only  be  one  thing: 
the  expression  of  American  nature,  an  Ameri 
can  land  peopled  with  half-civilized  beings, 
as  he  says,  but,  —  and  he  does  not  insist 
enough  upon  this,  with  Europeans  who  had 
recently  lost  their  own,  their  racial  civilization, 
without,  consequently,  having  as  yet  been  able 
to  develop  those  thoroughgoing  qualities  that 
are  accounted  characteristics  of  a  new  race. 

He  begins  his  essay  with  the  assertion  that 
American  society  does  not  yet  exist,  that  con 
sequently  there  can  be  no  American  literature: 
he  concludes  by  saying  precisely  the  opposite: 

...  la  societe  americaine  existe,  et  n'a  pas 
de  poesie  originale.  C'est  une  litterature  de 
reflet;  un  tel  malheur  n'£tait  arrive  a  aucun 
peuple.  ...  La  nouveaute  inouie  de  cette  civi- 


138      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

lisation  doit  aj  outer  &  la  nouveaut6  de  ces  ca- 
ract&res  .  .  .  [he  had  spoken  of  the  wealth  and 
interests  that  should  produce  complex  char 
acters),  et  cependant  la  Muse  ne  se  montre  pas, 
et  Tinspiration  n'est  pas  n6e! 

The  essay  is  faulty  in  general  plan,  for  Chasles 
does  not  leave  his  reader  a  clear  idea  as  to  just 
what  he  considered  might  be  legitimately  ex 
pected  in  American  literature,  but  is  the  most 
complete  and  suggestive  essay  that  had  appeared 
upon  the  subject. 

So  long  an  analysis  of  this  first  essay  of 
Chasles  seems  justified,  given  its  importance  as 
concerns  the  whole  body  of  the  French  criticism 
of  our  literature,  and  since  he  states  in  it  his 
general  point  of  view  perhaps  better  than  in 
any  other  single  article  of  his.  But,  as  was  said, 
his  interest  in  the  subject,  although  he  appears 
to  have  felt  that  he  was  wandering  on  arid 
ground,  continued  to  the  time  of  his  death  in 
1873.  For  although  he  was  not  always  satis 
fied — was  rarely  satisfied — with  the  authors  of 
whom  he  wrote,  the  problem  that  presented  itself 
to  his  mind  in  the  study  of  American  literature 
was  one  of  absorbing  interest:  there  had  come 
into  existence  a  new  nation;  there  was  to  develop 
a  new  people.  The  phenomenon,  on  such  a  scale 
as  it  could  be  witnessed  in  the  United  States, 
was  unique  in  history.  One  can  understand  his 
interest;  but  it  is  less  easy  to  understand  why, 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      139 

in  that  generalizing  epoch  of  criticism,  as  it  has 
sometimes  been  called,  there  were  so  few  others 
who  treated  of  the  subject.  The  purely  polit 
ical  aspect  of  the  United  States  would  naturally 
be  the  most  tangible  side,  as  it  were,  of  the  ques 
tion,  and  we  find  in  that  field  no  end  of  writ 
ings  of  interest.  But  the  literature,  as  the 
expression  of  the  people  ...  it  was  simply 
neglected,  so  far  as  serious  study  goes;  Chasles, 
with  all  his  hasty  work,  is  one  of  its  most  atten 
tive  students,  and  one  of  the  most  genuinely 
interested,  if  the  duration  of  the  interest  proves 
that  it  was  deeply  rooted  in  him.  And  his  last 
work,  as  was  mentioned,  "La  Psychologie  sociale 
des  nouveaux  peuples,"  must  in  large  part  have 
been  the  crystallization  of  those  very  studies. 
However,  "La  Psychologie  sociale  des  nouveaux 
peuples"  treats  more  incidentally  than  one 
would  expect,  judging  from  the  character  of  his 
previous  work,  of  the  literary  manifestations. 

The  collection  of  articles,  then,  known  as 
"Etudes  sur  la  litterature  et  les  mceurs  des 
Anglo-Americains  au  XIXe  siecle,"  published 
in  1851,  resumes  his  work  up  to  that  date,  and 
one  finds  in  it  the  substance  of  articles  not 
included  under  the  same  titles.7 

7  The  "Etudes"  were  published  in  Paris,  by  Amyot,  without 
date,  but  the  preface  is  signed,  "Institut,  Paris,  1851." 

The  article  referred  to  is  "Des  Tendances  litte"raires  en 
Angleterre  et  en  Ame>ique"  in  the  "Rev.  des  deux  Mondes," 
nouv.  se>.,  vol.  VII,  1844,  p.  497. 


140      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

The  chapters  that  compose  this  book,  or 
rather  the  separate  essays,  for  he  does  not 
attempt  to  make  any  other  unity  than  that  of 
subject  out  of  them,  bear  the  following  titles: 
"Les  Puritains,"  "  Literature  des  fitats-Unis," 
"Po£sie  de  la  vengeance,"  "Romanciers  anglo- 
ame*ricains,"  "Poetes  anglo-ame*ricains,"  "'Le 
Marchand  d'horloges, ' "  "  La  jeune  Acadienne," 
"Un  Incident  de  la  Guerre  de  l'ind£pendance," 
"Avenir  des  fitats-Unis."  To  take  up  these 
essays  one  after  the  other,  and  make  of  each  a 
complete  analysis  such  as  that  of  his  article  of 
1835,  would  be  a  long  and  unnecessary  proceed 
ing,  since  the  intention  is  here  rather  to  establish 
what  were  the  general  theories  and  ideas  about 
American  literature,  than  to  report  all  that  has 
been  said  upon  the  subject  in  France.  What 
ever,  then,  in  this  series,  that  throws  further 
light  upon  his  ideas  will  be  selected,  and  the 
detailed  study  of  particular  writers  omitted,  so 
far  as  it  does  not  aid  to  a  more  complete  under 
standing  of  him  than  we  already  have. 

And  in  this  study,  it  will  not  do  to  take  a 
given  statement  as  of  very  great  importance  in 
determining  Chasles'  point  of  view,  for,  as  has 
already  been  noticed,  he  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
guilty  of  a  seeming  contradiction  afterward. 
He  would  not  have  used  the  word  "guilty," 
and  perhaps  we  should  not,  as  he  is  aware  of 
his  characteristic,  and  explains  it  at  the  very 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      141 

beginning  of  his  book,  in  the  preface,  as  the 
inevitable  one  of  such  discussions;  we  may 
blame  him,  perhaps,  for  not  trying  to  conciliate 
his  varying  opinions;  where  he  did  not,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  attempt  it  here,  if  he  is  to  be 
rightly  understood. 

Involuntarily,  on  account  of  the  very  nature 
of  his  research,  the  European  who  studies  our 
literature  seeks  to  find  in  it  something  that  is 
distinctive,  the  key-note,  as  is  said  —  and  so 
far  so  good;  yet  he  incurs  the  danger  of  unduly 
accentuating  some  character  that  appears  in 
dividual,  but  that  upon  further  study  would 
perhaps  turn  out  to  be  only  a  slight  departure, 
after  all,  from  what  might  be  found  elsewhere  if 
sought  for.  Chasles  himself  is  caught  in  this 
pitfall  more  than  once;  but  he  has  the  ability 
to  see  more  than  one  characteristic  —  and  so  in 
a  way  he  redeems  himself. 

La  France  de  Mirabeau  et  de  Voltaire  cherche 
a  se  retrouver  dans  la  republique  nouvelle, 
sortie  des  mains  de  Locke  et  de  Washington.8 
La  plupart  de  nos  defauts  sont  americains. 
Dans  ce  pays  comme  chez  nous  les  paroles  sont 
larges  et  les  phrases  sont  grandes.  Nous  ap- 
pelons  un  apothicaire  "  pharmacien  " ;  —  nous 
n'avons  plus  d'epiciers;  sur  un  £criteau  rouge, 
on  lit  en  caracteres  jaunes  "  Commerce  universe! 
des  denrees  coloniales."  Les  Americains  comp- 

8  "fitudes,"  p.  245.  Hereafter  the  intial  fi  will  be  used  to 
distinguish  this  volume. 


142      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

tent,  ainsi  que  nous,  deux  ou  trois  mille  g6nies 
en  prose  et  en  vers;  comme  nous,  ils  parlent 
avec  orgueil  de  leurs  "  trois  cents  meilleurs 
poetes."  .  .  .  .  (15,  249) 

The  lines  are  irresistible,  and  the  author  of 
them  could  doubtless  not  help  writing  them. 
We  have  seen  that  although  at  one  time  France 
had  indeed  felt  a  certain  inclination  toward  the 
United  States  on  account  of  the  similarity  of 
political  ideal,  the  tendency  waned  rapidly,  in 
the  manifestations  that  have  been  studied  here, 
in  favor  of  a  conception  of  America  as  the  type 
of  the  industrial  nation.  Hyperbole  and  sound 
ing  phrases  for  the  meanest  ideas  were  indeed 
prevalent  here  —  but  does  his  comparison  hold? 
He  would  not  have  maintained  that  it  did, 
probably,  to  the  prejudice  of  other  generaliza 
tions  that  would  later  attract  him.  We  have 
the  following,  at  any  rate,  to  qualify  what  has 
just  been  read:9 

II  semble  difficile  aujourd'hui  d'isoler  la  lit- 
t£rature  d'un  peuple  et  de  la  soumettre  & 
une  analyse  sp^ciale.  .  .  .  Londres,  Paris,  Java, 
Surinam,  Pittsburgh  et  Halifax  donnent  les 
memes  fruits,  d'une  saveur  fade  et  aigrelette 
.  .  .  comme  ces  liqueurs  qui  ne  font  pas  faire 
de  folies,  qui  abreuvent  sans  danger  et  coutent 
peu.  Les  originalite*s  tranches,  les  livres  qui 

9  In  the  article  "Des  Tendances  litte>aires  en  Angleterre  et 
en  Amerique"  in  the  "Rev.  des  deux  Mondes"  for  August, 
1844,  p.  497. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      143 

ressortent  du  caractere  intime  et  special  de 
Fecrivain,  disparaissent  chaque  jour.  Je  ne 
vois  en  Ame"rique  que  le  philosophe  Emerson 
et  en  Angleterre  Carlyle,  qui  se  detachent  de 
la  masse.  .  .  . 

One  might  have  asked,  if  a  given  generation 
formerly  was  accustomed  to  produce  many  more 
of  the  strength  of  Emerson  and  Carlyle;  or 
again,  whether  those  two  were,  after  all,  the 
sum  of  independence  in  literary  expression  at 
that  time.  The  thesis,  so  far  as  that  goes, 
would  perhaps  prove  indefensible.  But  one  is 
glad  that  he  expressed  the  idea,  as  it  tells  us  at 
least  in  some  measure  how  to  take  the  previous 
one;  and  so  on.  ...  A  final  prediction: 

Ce  que  FAmerique  deviendra,  je  Fai  demontre 
dans  tous  les  chapitres  ,de  ce  volume;  une 
Europe  agrandie.  ...  (E,  p.  504) 

seems  much  better  hit  upon.  Only,  he  had  not 
precisely  demonstrated  the  probability  of  it  in 
every  chapter.  .  .  .  And  there  are  other  dicta 
that  are  profound  and  just,  so  founded  upon 
observation  of  typical  human  nature  that  no 
one  who  would  give  himself  the  pains  to  reflect 
upon  ordinary  experience  would  be  disposed  to 
question  them: 

Notre  monde  vieilli  qui  cherche  a  se  rajeunir 
se  rapproche,  ne*cessairement,  par  Fintention  du 
moins,  de  ce  monde  jeune  et  &  peine  forme*  qui 
voudrait  se  donner  pour  accompli.  (E,  p.  245) 


144      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

To  just  what  degree  the  above  is  true,  or 
inexact,  is  beside  the  point;  with  the  remark  he 
makes  plain  not  only  the  reason  for  the  Ameri 
can  love  of  everything  European  in  literature, 
but  also  the  point  of  view,  the  preconception  of 
the  European  studying  our  literature  and  insti 
tutions.  It  was  on  each  side  the  ideal  not 
meeting  the  reality  of  things,  and  a  consequent 
search  for  the  opposite  of  the  reality  of  sur 
roundings  that  in  each  case  might  be  partly 
realized  abroad. 

And  realizing  the  fact,  he  does  not  hesitate 
to  fall  into  the  error.  One  more  passage,  the 
length  of  which  will  be  palliated,  not  only 
because  of  its  interest,  but  because  it  is  alive 
and  has  the  author's  charm  of  style:10 

Quelle  nouveaute*  dans  le  monde  et  dans  Phis- 
toire,  par  exemple,  que  le  ge*nie  ame*ricairi  mo- 
derne?  Quoi  de  moins  id6al  en  apparence?  Quoi 
de  moins  litt^raire?  Ce  g6nie  n'est  point 
aimable.  II  n'est  point  de*sint£resse*.  II  s'assied 
sur  des  balles  de  coton,  brandit  un  revolver, 
voyage  de  1'Est  a  TOuest,  comme  le  boulet, 
sans  regarder;  il  a  des  vertus,  mais  e*bauche*es, 
violentes,  turbulentes,  furieuses,  farouches,  sou- 

10  It  is  from  the  "Psychologic  sociale  des  nouveaux  peuples," 
pp.  95-6-7,  but  would  seem  to  have  been  written  some  years 
before  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  work,  since  the  author 
speaks  of  the  Ku-Klux-Klan  as  existing.  Nevertheless  —  it  is 
one  of  his  final  conclusions.  We  may  expect  that  he  would 
have  corrected  it  with  others  had  he  lived  longer;  he  never  keeps 
his  conclusions  long. 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      145 

vent  grossieres.  II  n'est  pas  homogene.  Puri- 
tain  d'origine,  avec  un  souvenir  des  cavaliers 
royalistes  de  Charles  Ier,  Quaker  a  Philadelphie, 
Chinois  et  Japonais  du  cote  de  la  Sierra  Nevada, 
polygame  pres  du  Lac  Sale,  mystique  avec  les 
trappistes  et  les  spiritistes,  il  a  cree  une  secte 
actuelle,  celle  du  Ku-klux-klan,  qui  professe 
1'assassinat  comme  les  Thugs  ou  comme  les 
sectateurs  du  Vieux  de  la  Montagne.  Cepen- 
dant  FAmericain  adore  Franklin  et  fete  Wash 
ington.  Point  d'unite.  Des  Elements  epars  et 
contraires,  des  populations  infmiment  variees 
qui  ne  se  heurtent  pas,  parce  que  Tespace  est 
trop  vaste.  Partout,  depuis  Terre-Neuve  jusqu'a 
Sacramento,  ambition,  besoin  d'arriver,  ardeur 
a  conquerir  la  nature,  mepris  de  la  vie,  un 
mepris  grandiose;  ici,  la  barbarie  sombre;  la, 
une  civilisation  poursuivie  avec  acharnement; 
Thomme,  redevenu  presque  primitif ;  une  affinite 
violente  avec  la  vie  sauvage,  avec  les  bois,  les 
forets,  les  animaux,  la  mer,  les  montagnes,  le 
desert;  un  grand  bonheur  a  poursuivre  1'aven- 
ture  partout,  a  risquer  sa  vie,  sa  fortune,  a 
braver  TEurope,  a  etonner  les  monarchies  et  le 
Sud-Americain,  a  narguer  les  vieux  Anglo- 
Saxons,  les  oncles  et  les  peres;  quelque  chose  du 
parvenu;  mais  du  parvenu  heroi'que;  le  dedain 
de  tout  ce  qui  est  repos;  rien  de  casanier  et 
accroupi;  peu  de  haines  inveterees  entre  con- 
citoyens,  mais  beaucoup  de  violences  sanglantes; 
point  de  rancunes,  mais  beaucoup  de  combats 
ar dents.  Le  contraire  enfin  de  notre  Europe 
latine,  ou  les  salons  regnent  encore,  ou  les  partis 
se  saluent,  se  sifflent,  se  conspuent,  s'execrent 
mutuellement,  polis,  ulcer^s,  pleins  de  rages  et 


146      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

de  haines  implacables  au  milieu  de  leurs  sourdes 
manoeuvres. 

Telle  n'est  point  la  situation  morale  des 
fitats-Unis.  Leur  caractere  si  me!6  et  si  nou- 
veau  vient  d'avoir  son  organe.  Ce  g6nie,  qui 
s'est  &  peine  reconnu  lui-meme,  a  cr££  sa  po6sie. 
Je  ne  parle  ni  de  Longfellow  ni  de  plusieurs 
autres,  plus  Europ6ens  qu'Am^ricains,  mais  d'un 
nomm6  Miller.  Cette  muse  nouvelle  n'est  ni 
pure  ni  parfaite.  Elle  est  naturelle  et  brutale.  .  .  . 

II  est  aussi  abondant  que  Lamartine  en  de 
scriptions  anim6es  et  completes;  aussi  ardem- 
ment  concis  que  Byron;  il  est  aussi  £mu  que 
notre  Musset;  mais  le  tout  confus,  6norme, 
fangeux,  une  £bauche  de  Goya,  oil  le  g£nie 
s'6panche  a  flots  troubles.  Est-il  classique  ou 
romantique?  On  ne  sait.  Espagnol  ou  Anglo- 
Saxon?  Pas  davantage.  Barbare  ou  civilis6? 
Non  plus.  II  est  tout  cela.  Son  ceuvre  est  aussi 
peu  classique  que  les  meilleurs  pieces  de  Victor 
Hugo.  Elle  est  aussi  peu  romantique  que  les 
plus  larges  antistrophes  de  Pindare.  Seulement 
la  sant6  et  la  vie  sont  chez  lui. 

Goethe  s'en  serait  content^.  Miller  est  la 
nouvelle  Am6rique  meme. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  point  out  all  the 
errors  of  fact  that  are  in  this  passage;  much  that 
he  states  is  questionable,  at  least;  but  rather, 
his  willingness  to  ignore  certain  facts  for  the  sake 
of  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that  has  no  other 
excuse  than  that  he  wished  to  form  it.  For  the 
sake  of  finding  a  writer  resembling  Europeans 
as  little  as  possible,  and  whom  he  might  there- 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      147 

fore  —  but  before  establishing  sufficient  reasons 
—  consider  American  essentially,  he  passes  over 
the  host  of  authors  who  represent  the  greater 
number  of  Americans,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
thickly  settled  East,  the  representatives  of  the 
"  civilisation  poursuivie  avec  acharnement"  that 
he  admits  exists,  and  disposes  of  them  with  ease 
by  saying  that  they  are  rather  Europeans  than 
Americans.  It  is  like  those  other  truths  that 
have  been  uttered  about  the  Americans:  that 
they  were  Puritanical,  that  they  were  com 
mercial,  that  they  were  imitators  of  European 
manners,  that  they  were  devil-may-care  blades 
one  and  all,  etc.  As  detail,  such  remarks  are 
respectable  and  entitled  to  respect  when  quali 
fied;  as  generalizations,  they  are  but  sad 
specimens  of  criticism.  Chasles,  for  example, 
would  have  us  believe  that  the  United  States 
were  Puritan  in  their  origin,  but  tinged  "with  a 
reminiscence  of  the  royalist  cavaliers  of  Charles 
the  First. "  We  have  not  been  accustomed  to 
suppose  that  the  South  was  Puritan  in  its  origin, 
or  that  the  self-righteous  sleep  of  the  New 
England  farmers  was  disturbed  by  haunting 
visions  of  glittering  dames  and  cavaliers  whom 
their  ancestors  fled  like  the  pest  in  times  past. 

If  his  generalizations  are  suggestive,  they  are 
not  to  be  accepted  without  question,  and  his 
readers  in  France  in  the  middle  of  the  century 
and  after  must  have  got  what  real  information 


148      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

there  was  to  be  had  in  his  writings  —  and  we 
must  admit  that  there  was  a  very  great  deal, 
after  all  —  from  his  remarks  apropos  of  partic 
ular  writers,  sections,  or  periods.  And  certain 
incidental  bits  about  the  fate  of  the  American 
literature  in  France  are  valuable  for  us  here. 

Quand  Robinson  Crusoe  apercut  la  trace  des 
pas  de  Vendredi  sur  la  plage,  il  ne  ressentit  pas 
plus  d'6tonnement  que  le  public  d'Europe  au 
moment  ou  les  romans  americains  de  Cooper  lui 
apprirent  que  Ton  pouvait  vivre  a  New- York, 
etre  n6  sur  les  bords  de  la  Delaware,  n'imiter 
personne  et  avoir  du  ge"nie.  Depuis  longtemps 
les  critiques  avaient  decid6  que  le  talent  et  la 
qualit^  d'Am6ricain  6taient  inconciliables.  Une 
danseuse  hollandaise,  une  V6nus  de  Me"dicis 
n£e  parmi  les  Esquimaux  n'eussent  pas  6t6 
accueillies  avec  une  surprise  plus  profonde 
qu'un  bon  romancier  ou  un  bon  poete  aux  fitats- 
Unis.  (E.  p.  55) 

His  esteem  for  the  writings  of  Audubon,  as 
representative  of  America,  was  noted;  and  he 
takes  Audubon  as  being  the  last  of  the  writers 
of  the  first  period  of  American  literary  history 
(&.  p.  105), — the  epoch  of  Cooper  and  of 
Irving. 

It  has  been  seen  that  Chasles  realized,  and 
devoted  much  attention  to,  the  expression  of 
American  nature,  as  it  was  found,  for  example, 
in  Audubon ;  and  of  the  man  of  nature,  as  Cooper 
described  him;  and  as  a  certain  representative 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      149 

which  he  conceives  Joaquin    Miller  to  be  — 
expressed  himself. 

He  spoke  also  of  the  element  of  religious 
fanaticism  that  forms  a  part  of  the  subject- 
matter  for  poetry  in  America,  without,  however, 
going  into  the  old  colonial  literature  of  the  New 
Englanders  to  illustrate  his  statement.  This 
he  does,  apropos  of  a  then  lately  published 
work11  which  he  takes  the  pains  to  translate 
into  French,  with  an  accompanying  article.  It 
is  a  drama,  and  one  that  shows  great  talent, 
the  translator  thinks;  and  he  goes  on  to  say 
why  the  form  had  hitherto  numbered  so  few 
good  examples.  It  is  the  same  reason  that  is 
generally  felt  to-day  to  be  the  true  one,  and 
that  was  indicated  before  in  this  chapter. 
Puritanism,  a  phase  of  which  Matthews  drama 
tized,  had  been  the  enemy  of  dramatic  presen 
tations,  of  the  theatre,  inasmuch  as  the  theatre 
was  the  expression  of  the  keen  and  passionate 
interest  in  human  life,  that  Puritanism  decried. 
Perhaps  it  is  worth  while  to  call  attention,  in 
this  place,  to  the  change  in  Chasles'  opinion  of 
the  importance  of  Puritanism  when  he  was  writ 
ing  and  translating  in  the  '50's,  and  when,  in 
later  years,  he  wrote,  in  the  "  Psychologic  sociale 
des  nouveaux  peuples,"  what  we  have  seen  re- 

11  This  work  is  Cornelius  Matthew's  "Works  of  the  Devil." 
—  His  article  and  translation  appeared  in  the  "Revue  contem- 
poraine"  in  vol.  V  of  the  1852-3  series,  pp.  204  et  sqq. 


150      FRENCH    CRITICISM    OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

garding  Joaquin  Miller.  In  that  space  of  time 
the  facts  themselves  may  have  changed  suffi 
ciently  to  warrant  a  new  view:  —  that  is,  Puri 
tanism  as  a  force  in  American  thought  may  have 
seemed  to  him  to  decrease  much  in  importance. 
But  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  posit  this,  how 
ever  true  it  was,  as  the  reason  for  the  new  judg 
ment.  It  is  simply  worth  while  to  note  that 
he  felt  the  stress  of  the  two  forces,  Puritanism 
and  individualism,  in  American  literature. 

And  here  we  arrive  at  democracy,  of  which  it 
will  have  been  noticed  he  has  far  less  to  say 
than  most  critics.  And  he  takes  Channing  as 
the  representative  of  democracy,  in  one  of  his 
phases  —  the  one  that  Chasles  considers,  by 
the  way,  his  characteristic. 

.  .  .  c'est  .  .  .  le  balancement  des  opinions, 
la  pond6ration  des  principes  que  le  docteur 
Channing  essaie  d'6tablir.  .  .  .  Cette  Iachet6 
de  la  pens6e,  cette  faiblesse  devant  Popinion 
s'effaceront  a  mesure  que  les  fitats-Unis  s'61e- 
veront  a  une  civilisation  plus  avance*e.  Dans 
le  mode  actuel  des  institutions  am^ricaines,  dans 
ce  jeu  naturel  et  n6cessaire  d'un  peuple  qui  tend 
tous  les  ressorts  de  son  organisme  vers  la  con- 
quete  matSrielle  de  la  nature  et  la  creation  des 
industries,  il  faut  que  tout  le  monde  marche  en 
bataillon  et  se  dirige  vers  le  meme  but.  Plus 
d'opinion  libre,  plus  de  hardiesse  intellectuelle. 
Un  ostracisme  inexorable  bannit  tout  ce  qui 
d£passe  un  certain  module.  Anath&me  sur  la 
pens£e  qui  s'61oignerait  de  la  ligne  commune! 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      151 

De  la,  une  complaisance  universelle  pour  les 
idees  regues,  un  jesuitisme  souple  et  facile.  .  .  . 
On  ne  veut  pas  commettre  ce  crime  de  "lese- 
vulgaire"  ...  on  etouffe  les  fantaisies  de  son 
esprit;  .  .  .  on  ne  veut  point  devenir  la  "bete 
noire "  du  troupeau:  la  liberte  politique  aboutit 
a  la  servitude  de  la  pensee. 

Ce  ne  peut  etre  qu'une  situation  passagere. 
Des  que  les  interets  materiels  seront  satisfaits, 
F  opposition  qui  ne  tardera  pas  a  se  former 
servira  de  contre-poids  a  Fopinion  .  .  .  Finqui- 
sition  populaire  s'evanouira.  .  .  .  (E.  pp.  64-6) 

In  his  article  of  1835,  he  had  not  much  en 
couragement  to  give  prospective  French  readers 
of  the  American  poets:  his  judgments  at  that 
time  were,  in  fact,  such  as  to  deter  any  who 
might  have  been  curious  about  the  subject  from 
entering  into  it.  In  the  "  Etudes  "  is  an  article, 
written  apropos  of  Griswold's  "  Poets  and 
Poetry  of  America,"  published  in  Philadelphia 
in  1842,  where  he  again  goes  into  the  subject,  but 
evidently  without  much  changing  his  earlier 
opinions.  This  time,  the  only  names  worth 
favorable  mention,  he  finds  to  be  those  of  Street, 
Fitz-Greene  Halleck,  William  Cullen  Bryant, 
Longfellow,  and  Emerson.  Percival,  Charles 
Sprague,  Dana,  and  Drake  are  not  mere  poetas 
ters,  one  judges,  but  still  cannot  claim  much 
for  themselves. 

He  does  not  consider  that  there  is  a  remedy 
for  this  condition  of  the  country's  lack  of  poetry; 


152      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

or  rather,  the  remedy  will  grow  with  the  lapse 
of  time.  He  takes  the  question  of  imagination 
to  be  the  important  one  in  this  connection,  let 
ting  us,  of  course,  infer  that  he  means  a  national, 
a  typically  American  imagination.  And  he  puts 
his  point  very  strikingly,  by  means  of  a  sort  of 
definition  of  imagination:  imagination  is  recol 
lection  put  to  a  constructive  use,  probably  un 
consciously;  such  is  the  sense  of  his  proposition. 

De  meme  qu'il  serait  impossible  &  un  homme 
prive*  de  souvenir  d'avoir  de  1'imagination,  cette 
qualite*  de  Pintelligence  ne  peut  appartenir  a  un 
peuple  ne*  hier,  dont  tout  le  passe*  date  de  la 
veille.  .  .  .  Les  fitats-Unis  .  .  .  manquent  du 
cre*puscule  et  de  la  peiiombre  que  donne  la 
perspective,  (fi.  p.  9) 

Americans,  however,  realized  what  was  lack 
ing  in  their  productions,  and,  he  says,  from  1840 
had  been  seeking,  on  the  basis  of  national  tradi 
tions,  to  nationalize  the  literature.  That  there 
should  be  irregularity  and  failure  he  considers 
inevitable,  but  those  are  conditions  of  such  an 
effort,  and  must  be  excused  in  consideration  of 
the  attempt.  (£.  p.  304) 

In  spite  of  the  measured  praise  that  he 
gave  him  in  his  earlier  study,  it  is  nevertheless 
Longfellow  whom  he  finds  the  most  interesting 
in  this  analysis;  and,  as  may  be  expected,  on 
account  of  "Evangeline."  Or  rather,  it  seems 
to  have  been  "Evangeline"  that  led  him  to 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE      153 

take  up  the  study  of  Longfellow,  but,  once 
entered  into  that  study,  he  finds  the  whole 
attitude  of  Longfellow  an  individual  case,  as  it 
indeed  was,  meriting  attention  for  other  reasons 
than  the  attempt  at  nationalization. 

Briefly,  his  attitude  is  this:  so  far  as  subject- 
matter  is  concerned,  Longfellow's  choice  was 
excellent:  better  than  that  of  Voss  writing 
"Louise,"  better  than  that  of  Goethe  writing 
"Hermann  and  Dorothea."  (E.  p.  305)  The 
defect  in  treatment,  as  Chasles  says,  what 
is  lacking  in  "Evangeline,"  is  passion.  (E.  p. 
319)  But  this  defect  is  redeemed  —  so  far  as 
such  a  defect  can  be  redeemed  by  any  quality 
whatsoever,  he  lets  us  infer  —  by  a  calm  that  is 
almost  majesty,  and  by  a  peculiar  depth  of 
feeling.  Tegner,  alone,  gives  an  idea  of  the 
melody  and  measured  progress  of  the  emotion. 
One  hears  in  this  verse  "la  permanence  triste 
des  grands  bruits  et  des  grandes  ombres  dans 
ces  plaines  qui  n'ont  pas  de  fin  et  dans  ces  bois 
qui  n'ont  pas  d'histoire."  (E.  p.  299) 

Two  more  remarks:  the  technique  of  Long 
fellow,  learned  from  a  careful  study  of  all  the 
European  literatures,  is  distinguished  by  a 
characteristic  that  seems  peculiar  to  the  Scan 
dinavian  —  or  particularly  to  the  Scandinavian 
poetry  of  the  older  period  —  that  of  alliteration. 
The  principle  of  structure  was  used  by  Long 
fellow  with  a  skill  and  an  effectiveness  that 


154      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN    LITERATURE 

show  that  for  him  it  was  no  rhetorical  trick; 
he  learned  it  from  the  Northern  poetry,  but 
he  used  it  unconsciously. 

And  if  Longfellow  was  a  Protestant,  his  work 
nevertheless  has  the  distinction  of  displaying  a 
breadth  in  the  conception  of  Christian  ideas 

that  is  worthy  of  very  special  credit.  (E.  p. 

3< 
4 


VI 

CONCLUSIONS 

BEFORE  1835  American  literature  can  hardly 
be  said  to  have  had  a  real  critic  in  France.  The 
straggling  bibliographical  notes  and  the  in 
complete  accounts  of  such  American  works  as 
appealed  at  all  to  the  French  reviewers  seem  to 
indicate,  indeed,  not  any  interest  in  American 
literature  as  such,  but  rather  a  mere  mention  of 
what  was  considered  the  least  important  mani 
festation  of  the  intellectual  life  of  the  United 
States.  There  are  certain  traces  of  a  feeling  of 
disappointment  that  American  literature  did  not 
immediately  reflect  in  poetry  and  in  oratory  the 
idealism  of  liberty.  The  idea  was  general  before 
Tocqueville  —  and  after  Tocqueville  it  regained 
a  considerable  ascendancy  —  that  the  American 
people  was  a  new  race,  and  that  a  new  and 
vigorous  literature  would  come  out  of  it.  There 
are  examples,  before  Chasles  and  Tocqueville, 
of  mention  of  what  was  termed  "the  tyranny  of 
the  English  language  " ;  but  Chasles  and  Tocque 
ville  explained  the  state  of  matters  more  exactly 
by  a  recognition  of  facts:  it  was  evident  to 

155 


156      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

them  that  the  American  people  was  not  a  new 
people,  but  an  old  race  transplanted. 

The  other  important  consideration  for  French 
critics  before  1835-40  was  that  of  the  American 
soil.  Such  unspoiled  beauty  and  majesty  as 
that  could  not  fail,  in  the  ideas  of  readers  of 
Rousseau,  of  Bernardin  de  Saint-Pierre,  of 
Chateaubriand,  —  such  nature  could  not  fail, 
especially  when  taken  together  with  the  ideal  of 
liberty  and  fraternity  consecrating  all  to  a  new 
epoch  of  human  history,  to  evoke  the  most 
enthusiastic  confidence  in  the  qualities  that 
would  be  inherent  in  American  literature.  The 
boon  of  this  new  and  vigorous  expression  was 
not  forthcoming;  the  French  were  nonplussed, 
or  became  querulous  over  the  "  tyranny "  of 
English .  It  took  the l '  Democratic  en  Ame* rique 7 ; 
to  make  it  evident  that  the  destinies  of  the  race 
were  the  important  consideration  in  America; 
that  men  did  not  go  there  to  pass  their  years  in 
religious  contemplation  before  the  grandeur  of 
mountain  and  plain  and  forest,  but  to  conquer 
that  nature  and  to  suit  it  to  the  happiness  of  the 
greatest  possible  number.  The  democratic  ideal 
was  the  human  ideal,  and  the  well-being  of  men 
was  the  first  consideration. 

It  was  stated  above  that  literature  was  con 
sidered  in  France  the  least  important  concern 
in  connection  with  the  United  States.  The 
reviewers  and  travellers  expected  much  in  that 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      157 

line,  found  but  little,  and  came  to  the  conclu 
sion  that  the  Americans  were  seriously  lacking 
there,  but  without  explaining  the  matter  to 
themselves.  And  it  is  this  lack  of  serious  and 
intelligent  analysis  that  left  them  constantly 
disappointed  and  disgruntled  to  a  degree  never 
evident  either  in  Tocqueville  or  in  Chasles. 

Franklin  and  Cooper,  in  their  time,  were 
certainly  very  popular  in  France;  Franklin 
because  he  was  the  most  distinguished  person 
ality  of  a  nation  to  a  considerable  degree  the 
protegee  of  France,  and  Cooper  because  he 
described  American  wild  nature  —  which  was 
certainly  what  a  true  American  should  be 
expected  to  do !  —  and  because  his  plots  were 
absorbing.  As  for  Franklin,  his  popularity  was 
due  largely  to  his  ability  as  a  diplomat  and  as 
a  scientist.  We  learn  from  contemporary  reviews 
that  "Poor  Richard's  Almanac"  was  popular 
in  French  translation,  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  it  was  considered  very  particularly  repre 
sentative  of  American  literature. 

After  the  early  enthusiasm  for  America  as 
the  representative  of  the  new  democracy,  in 
the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  — 
when  it  was  becoming  evident  that  its  literature 
would,  at  least  in  its  beginnings,  follow  along 
the  paths  of  English  tradition  —  the  French 
surrendered  the  right  of  first  judgment  of  it 
to  the  English;  French  publishers  are  advised 


158      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

to  await  the  opinion  of  English  reviewers  upon 
a  given  American  wrork  before  arranging  for  its 
translation  into  French.  There  is  noticeable 
here  a  certain  discrepancy,  too,  between  the 
criticism  accorded  American  books,  such  as  the 
novels  of  Brockden  Brown,  and  their  popularity 
in  French  translation.  It  is  one  of  the  reasons 
for  supposing  that  the  American  literature  as 
such,  given  the  trend  it  was  taking  towards 
English  tradition,  was  not  considered  as  rep 
resentative  of  the  nation:  that  a  given  work 
might  be  interesting  in  itself,  and  widely  read, 
as  was  doubtless  the  case  with  the  novels  of 
Brockden  Brown,  but  that,  at  the  same  time,  it 
would  be  very  probably  an  imitation  of  some 
English  writer;  therefore  relatively  unimportant 
except  in  relation  to  the  model,  and  in  any  case 
not  American. 

The  periods  in  the  development  of  the  French 
criticism  of  our  literature  are  fairly  distinctly 
marked.  From  the  beginning,  that  is  to  say 
from  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
approximately, , to  the  year  1819,  is  a  period  of 
very  scanty  remarks  upon  the  subject,  mostly 
confined,  of  course,  in  the  first  part,  to  the  one 
well-known  writer  of  America,  Franklin.  In 
1819,  with  the  founding  of  the  "  Revue  ency- 
clope*dique,"  considerably  more  frequent  notices 
appear,  but  it  is  not  until  the  end  of  the  first 
quarter  of  the  century,  1825-30,  that  these 


FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF  AMERICAN   LITERATURE      159 

notices  begin  to  develop,  at  times,  into  attempts 
at  a  general  appreciation  of  the  main  charac 
teristics  of  American  literature.  In  1835  the 
first  comprehensive  study  appeared  in  Philarete 
Chasles'  article  in  the  "  Revue  des  deux 
Mondes";  and  in  1840,  with  the  second  part  of 
Tocqueville's  "Democratic  en  Amerique,"  the 
examination  of  American  literature  as  the  lit 
erature  of  a  democracy.  Tocqueville  as  a  theo 
retician  supplements  Chasles;  together  they 
give  a  fairly  adequate  general  view  which  those 
who  come  later  can  utilize,  if  only  tentatively, 
in  seeking  out  the  history  of  the  development  of 
literature  in  the  United  States. 

The  French  critics  who  follow  Tocqueville 
and  Chasles  will  profit  by  their  study.  They 
are,  besides,  to  have  greater  American  writers 
to  discuss.  Emerson,  Channing,  Poe,  and  Long 
fellow  are  to  be  studied  by  Montegut,  Laboulaye^ 
Caro,  Jouffroy,  Etienne;  and  the  question  of 
slavery  and  emancipation  will  be  agitated  in 
France  as  elsewhere  around  a  work  of  fiction. 
The  two  decades  from  1840  will  be  eventful 
ones  in  the  destinies  of  American  literature; 
and  the  character  of  the  discussion  of  it  is  not 
of  a  piece  with  what  went  before  1835-1840. 
On  the  whole  its  history  is  a  development  —  not 
always  constant,  it  is  true  —  beyond  the  status 
of  the  discussion  where  Chasles  abandoned  it 
about  1850. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


PERIODICALS  CONSULTED  FOR  THE  FRENCH 
REVIEWS  OF  AMERICAN  WORKS  TO   1852 


1 .  "  Magasin  encyclope"dique  " 

2.  "  Bibliotheque  britannique ' ' 

(Section  "Litterature") 

3.  "  Mercure  de  France  " 


4.  "Mercure  etranger" 

5 .  "  Bibliotheque  uni verselle ' ' 

(Section  "Litte"rature") 

6.  "Journal  des  Savants" 

7.  "Annales  encyclope"diques  " 

8.  "  Minerve  f  rancaise ' ' 

9.  "Revue  encyclope"dique " 

10.  "Revue  britannique *' 

11.  " Bulletin  du  bibliophile" 

12.  "Revue  de  Paris"  (old) 

13.  "Revue  des  deux  Mondes" 


14.    "  Magasin  litteraire" 


consulted  1795-1816  inclusive 

"        1796-1800         " 
1800-1820    (Except 
Apr.  29  and  Sept. 
2,  1815) 
1813-1814   inclusive 

1816-1818 
"        1816-1852          " 

1817-1818 

1818-1820 

"        1819-1832          " 
"        1825-1852 

1834-1850 

1829-1843 

"  1829-1850  (Except 
t.  XXVI  and 
1830) 

1842-1847   inclusive 


THE  PRINCIPAL  BOOKS  CONTAINING  DISCUSSIONS 
OF  AMERICAN  LITERATURE 

la.  "Esquisse  morale  et  politique  des  fitats-Unis  de  1'Ame'rique 
du  nord";  Achille  Murat,  "citoyen  des  fitats-Unis,  colonel 
honoraire  dans  I'arme'e  beige,  ci-devant  prince  royal  des  Deux- 
Siciles."  Paris,  imp.  Vve  Thuau,  lib.  Crochard,  1832. 

16.  (An  English  translation,  entitled:)  "The  United  States  of 
North  America"  (the  name  of  the  translator  not  given); 
published  in  London  by  Effingham  Wilson.  The  2d  edition 
is  dated  1833. 

161 


162      FRENCH   CRITICISM   OF   AMERICAN   LITERATURE 

2.  "Re"ponse   d*  quelques    imputations   centre    les    fitats-Unis, 

e"nonc6es  dans  des  6crits  et  jouraaux  re"cents";  Eugene  A. 
Vail,  citoyen  des  fitats-Unis.  .  .  .  Paris,  1837. 

3.  "De  la  litte>ature,  et  des  hommes  de  lettres  aux  fitats-Unis 

d'Ame>ique";  Eugene  A.  Vail,  citoyen  des  fitats-Unis. 
Paris  (Ch.  Gosselin),  1841. 

4.  "Washington:  Vie,  Correspondance  et  ficrits"  .  .  .;    F-P-G. 

Guizot,  6  vols.,  Paris  (Ch.  Gosselin),  1839-1840.  (The 
translation  of  selections  from  Jared  Sparks'  edition  of  "The 
Writings  of  George  Washington";  12  vol.,  Boston,  1834- 
1837.) 

5.  "(Euvres    completes";    Alexis    de    Tocqueville,    publie'es   par 

Madame  de  Tocqueville.  .  .  .  "De  La  Democratic  en  Ame"ri- 
que"  comprises  the  first  three  volumes  of  this  edition,  and 
are  in  this  edition,  of  1888;  "La  Democratic"  appeared 
originally  from  1835-1840  (the  first  part  in  1835,  the  second, 
in  1840). 

6.  "Etudes  sur  la  litte>ature  et  les  moours  des  Anglo- Am6ricains 

au  XIXe  siecle";  Philarete  Chasles,  Paris  (Amyot),  s.d. 
(1851). 

7.  "La  Psychologic    sociale    des   nouveaux  peuples";    Philarete 

Chasles,  Paris  (Charpentier),  1875.  (Published  posthu 
mously;  it  was  completed  in  1873.) 


INDEX 


Adams  (H.  B.)  94n 
Addison  (J.)  123 
Ampere  (J.-J.)  121 
Audubon  (J.  J.  )  135,  148 

Bancroft  (G.)  133 
Barlow  (J.)  47n,  80,  130 
Belloc    (Mme)   21n,   29n,   44, 

62n,  63 

Bernardin  de  Saint-Pierre  156 
Brainard  (J.  G.  C.)  130 
Brown   (C.  B.)  57n,  58,  134, 

158 

Bryan  (D.)  29n,  30 
Bryant  (W.  C.)  54,  55,  57,  80, 

130,  151 
Byron  22n,  54,  55,  57,  103, 146 

Campbell  (Th.)  38,  135 

Carlyle  (Th.)  143 

Caro  (E.-M.)  159 

Caste*ra,  6 

Channing   (W.   E.)    134,    150, 

159 
Chasles  (Ph.)  76,  77,  79,  118- 

155,  159 
Chateaubriand     (F.-R.)     103, 

135,  156 
Cheever  (G.)  51 
Chevalier  (M.)  83 
Coleridge  (S.  T.)  38,  55 


Cooper  (J.  F.)  4n,  19,  22n, 
38-^4,  52-54,  57,  59,  65-69, 
77,  123,  134,  148,  157 

Corneille  (P.)  80 

Crabbe  (G.)  55,  57 

Dana  (R.)  34-36,  54-55,  130, 

151 

Daunou  (P.-C.-F.)  7,  23 
Davidson  (L.  M.)  38n 
Defauconpret  40,  42n 
Depping  12,  42 
Dillon  (P.)  78-83 
Doane  (G.  W.)  130 
Drake  (R.)  130,  151 
Dunlap  (Wm.)  61-62 
Dwight,  130 

Edwards  (J.)  134 

Eliot  (J.)  47n 

Emerson  (R.  W.)  143,  151,  159 

fitienne  (L.)  159 

Fairneld  (S.  L.)  29n 

Fontaney  (A.)  64n 

Franklin  (B.)  5-9,  19,  23-24, 

81,  128-129,  157-158 
Freneau  (P.)  130 


Godwin  (Wm.)  59 
Goethe,  153 


163 


164 


INDEX 


Griffin  (E.  0.)  60n 
Griswold  (R.)  151 
Guizot  (F.-P.-G.)  83 

Halleck   (F.-G.)  22n,  55,  130, 

151 

Hemans  (F.)  38,  130 
Hillhouse  (J.  A.)  32 
Hugo  (V.)  146 
"Humours  of  Utopia"  44 
Hunter  (Mrs.)  47 

Irving  (W.)  20,  21,  24,  26,  42, 
44,  48n,  57,  64-68,  77,  123, 
134 

Jay  (J.)  81 

Jefferson  (Th.)  23,  24,  81 
Jouffroy  (J.-M.)  159 
Juilien  (B.)  40 
Jullien  (M.-A.)  46 

Kettell  (S.)  22n 

Laboulaye  (E.)  159 
Lafayette,  29 
Lamartine  (A.)  103 
Lamst,  43 
Landon  (L.  E.)  38 
Laroche  (B.)  69 
Lebrun  (J.)  19 
Locke  141 

Longfellow  (H.  W.)  26,  55, 130, 
140,  146,  151-154,  159 

M'Henry  (J.)  51,  52n 
Madison  (J.)  81 
Matthews  (C.)  149 


Mignet  (F.)  8 

Miller  (J.)  146,  148,  150 

Millin  (A.-L.)  6 

Mirabeau,  141 

Monod  (G.)  91 

Monte*gut  (fi.)  159 

Montgolfier  (A.)  51,  57n,  60n 

Montgomery  (J.)  47n 

Moore  (Th.)  22n,  33 

Morris  (G.)  3 

Morse  (S.)  38n 

Murat  (A.)  70-75 

Musset  (A.)  146 

Nack  (J.)  130 
Neal  (J.)  130 

Osborne  (A.)  130 

Paine  (Th.)  23 

Paulding  (J.  K.)  44,  65,  66,  77, 

135 

Percival  (J.)  32,  130,  151 
Person  (Wm.)  38n 
Pierpont  (J.)  130 
Pigault  de  Mont-Baillard  57n 
Pindar  146 
Pinkney  (E.)  130 
Poe  (E.  A.)  4n,  159 
Pope  (A.)  22n 

Racine,  80 
Rogers  (S.)  38 
Rousseau  (J.-J.)  6,  156 

Scott  (W.)  38-42,  44,  53-54, 

57,  59,  123 
Sedgwick  (Miss)  43,  134 


INDEX 


165 


Sedgwick  (H.  D.)  43n 
Sigourney  (L.)  130 
Smith  (R.  P.)  62n 
Southey  (R.)  38,  55 
Southwick  (S.)  29n,  30 
Sparks  (J.)  83,  94n,  133 
Sprague  (Ch.)  130,  151 
Story  (I.)  130 
Suard  (J.-B.-A.)  11 

Tegner,  153 

Tocqueville   (A.)  77,  81,    83, 

85  sq.,  118,  125,  155,  156, 

159 


Vail  (E.  A.)  76-80,  82-84 
Vickar  (J.  M.)  60n 
Voltaire  8,  141 
Voss  (J.  H.)  153 

Warden  (D.  B.)  12 
Ware  (A.)  114 
Washington,  83,  128,  141 
Weill  (G.)  70n 
Wetmore  (P.  M.)  130 
Whartoix  (J.)  47n 
Willis  (N.  P.)  21n,  36-37,  130 
Woodworth  (S.)  130 
Wordsworth  54-55,  57 


VITA 

Born  in  Lodi,  Ohio,  1888.  Student  in  Washington 
University.  Saint  Louis,  1906-7;  in  the  University  of 
Michigan,  1907-8,  and  again  in  1910.  graduating  with 
the  degree  of  A.B.  in  1910.  The  year  1909  was  spent  in 
France. .  Assistant  in  Romance  Languages  in  the  Uni- 
?qhil>  of  Illinois  during  the  year  1910-11;  Instructor 
in  French  in  Washington  University,  1911-12.  The 
years  1912-14  were  spent  in  Italy.  Instructor  in  French 
in  the  Department  of  Extension  Teaching  of  Columbia 
University  since  1914.  Registered  in  the  Graduate 
School  of  Columbia  University,  Department  of  Romance 
Tdingreigm  and  literatures,  in  1914,  and  work  for  the 
degree  of  PhJX  concluded  in  1916. 

HABOLD  Fi.ifnt  MANTZ 
YOMX, 
March,  1917 


THIS  BOOK  IS 


DATE 


MAR_jj_J94p 


JUJU-196644 


-9itf???lL 


I 


'39(402*) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRAR^ 


